Has the SSPX committed a mistake when it considers the baptism of desire as being relevant to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney?

 

think that you are "pounding on open doors", at least to an extent:

Salvation is never visible to us, whether with or without Sacramental Baptism.

Lionel:

So then is the baptism of desire which refers to salvation in Heaven an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, when there are no visible cases on earth?

Is it relevant to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney?

Has the SSPX committed a mistake when it considers the baptism of desire as being relevant to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney?

 

Agreed? However, you need to differentiate between a moral certitude and an absolute one. It is easy to imagine a situation of a convert from Islam, who, to a moral certitude, we can say was never baptized, but upon conversion to the One True Faith, was killed confessing the Name of Jesus Christ. To a moral certitude, we can say that person went to Heaven, even without sacramental Baptism.

Lionel:

Would this case be an exception the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney ?

That is what the SSPX teaches and believes.

Lionel:

Does the SSPX teach that the baptism of desire being not visible to us in real life is not an exception to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney?- Lionel Andrades