SSPX PRIESTS AND FR.LEONARD FEENEY'S COMMUNITIES BELIEVE THAT THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE CASES ARE VISIBLE TO US.

The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary say if you admit that a person can be saved with the baptism of desire it contradicts the dogma which says all need to convert into the Church with the baptism of water.For them the baptism of desire is explicit .This is what they assume and imply whether they know it or not.Reason tells us that the baptism of desire is always implicit for us. So implicit,known only to God baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Since it is known only to God the Church Fathers and the Church Councils did not consider it an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

It is possible to affirm implicit desire along with the dogma on exclusive salvation.

If the baptism of desire was explicit and not just a possibility known only to God, then it would contradict the dogma.

On the other side of the coin are the SSPX priests Fr.Francois Liasney, Peter Scott and Joseph Pfieffer. They criticize the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney, the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, over the baptism of desire issue.

The SSPX priests accept the baptism of desire cases as explicit and as exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma. For them too the baptism of desire is relevant to the dogma and an exception.Unlike the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the sedevacantists they accept  explicit baptism of desire.

Still, all of them are assuming that the baptism of desire is explicit. Fr.Leonard Feeney's communities assume it is explicit and reject it. The SSPX priests assume it is explicit and accept.

The sedevacantists Most Holy Family Monastery assume the baptism of desire is explicit and also reject it.

They have all fallen into the error of the Archbishop of Boston Richard Cushing who assumed that the baptism of desire was explicit and so like the SSPX priests accepted it.

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 added to the confusion and seemed to suggest that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are relevant to the dogma and these are explicit cases.

There is no known baptism of desire or being saved in invincible ignorance and yet the excommunication of Fr.Leonard Feeney was not lifted for 19 years.

-Lionel Andrades