Is not the SSPX formally saying here that there are defacto exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
If there are defacto exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation in the present times then it means the dead-saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire are physically visible and known to them.They would have to be present and known to be exceptions.
If these cases are "visible," then why can't we name those individuals? Who are they?
Correct, that's my point. So how can the USCCB , the SSPX, CathInfo and so many others say there are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? This is heresy?
I don't think that the SSPX has ever made such a claim, even implicitly. If you believe otherwise, please post the exact paragraph from a SSPX document.
Here is the proof. The following two passages are from the SSPX website.
Misrepresentation of the dogma, "Outside the Church There Is No Salvation"
The first error of those who take their doctrine from Rev. Fr. Leonard Feeney, commonly known as "Feeneyites," is that they misrepresent the dogma, "Outside the [Catholic] Church there is no salvation." The Feeneyites misrepresent this as, "Without baptism of water there is no salvation." (Without the baptism of water there is no defacto salvation.Without the baptism of water de jure in principle, salvation is a possibility known to God)
St. Cyprian (c.210-258) was the first Catholic saint to use in writing the expression "extra ecclesiam nulla salus," ("Outside the Church there is no salvation"). In the very passage in which he uses this phrase, St. Cyprian also expresses that baptism of water is inferior to baptism of blood. Since baptism of blood, he says, is not fruitful outside the Church, because "outside the Church there is no salvation," baptism of water also cannot be fruitful outside the Church. The reason for this is that it would imprint the character of baptism but would not give sanctifying grace, i.e., justification, which opens the gates of heaven.
In the very next paragraph, St. Cyprian teaches, with all the fathers, doctors, popes and unanimously all theologians, that baptism of blood, that is, dying for the Catholic Faith, is the most glorious and perfect baptism of all, explicitly stating "even without the water." In the paragraph following this one, St. Cyprian teaches that Catholic faithful who, through no fault of their own, were received into the Catholic Church without a valid baptism, would still go to heaven. This is to say that they would die with the requisite Catholic faith and charity, necessary to go to heaven, though without the waters of baptism. These requisites are exactly the conditions of "baptism of desire."
(Why is the SSPX priest mentioning the baptism of desire and baptism of blood with reference to Fr.Leonard Feeney? How can something that is not defacto seen ( but accepted hypothetically) be an exception to relevant to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney?)
Why not then believe the dogma "outside the Church there is no salvation" "...with the same sense and the same understanding - in eodem sensu eademque sententia" - as the whole Catholic Church has taught it from the beginning, that is, including the "three baptisms"? Fr. Leonard Feeney and his followers give a new meaning, a new interpretation, to this dogma.
(Since 'from the beginning' the Church has never taught that the baptism of blood and desire are physically visible to us in the present times.Since they are not visible in the present times they cannot be a defacto exception to the traditional interpretation.For the SSPX priest these cases are relevant. So he implies that they exist defacto. If they did not exist defacto they would not be relevant. So indirectly he is saying that these cases are visible for us and they are exceptions to the dogmatic teaching).
This traditional interpretation of this dogma, including the "three baptisms," is that of St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Fulgentius, St. Bernard, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Peter Canisius, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Pope Innocent II, Pope Innocent III, the Council of Trent, Pope Pius IX, Pope St. Pius X, etc., (Wrong - none of the persons mentioned here say that the baptism of desire is physically visibile to us) and unanimously all theologians (prior to the modernists). (None of them!) St. Alphonsus says: "It is de fide [that is, it belongs to the Catholic Faith - Ed.] that there are some men saved also by the baptism of the Spirit." (He does not imply or say that it is visible to us physically. Since it is an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney, it must be physically visible to Fr.Francois Laisney and the SSPX)
The traditional interpretation of "Outside the Church there is no salvation," was approved by the Council of Florence (1438-1445).(It does not mention the baptism of desire as an exception. So it was not saying that these cases are visible to us) The Council Fathers present made theirs the doctrine of St. Thomas on baptism of desire, saying that for children one ought not to wait 40 or 80 days for their instruction, because for them there was "no other remedy." This expression is taken directly from St. Thomas (Summa Theologica, IIIa, Q.68, A. 3) and it refers explicitly to baptism of desire (ST, IIIa, Q.68, A.2). Despite the fact that the Council of Florence espoused the doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas, it is astonishing to see Feeneyites opposing this council to St. Thomas! (St.Thomas never said that the baptism of desire is visible to us or that it is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is the error of the SSPX )
None of the arguments of the Feeneyites have value against the rock of Tradition. But, to be consistent, let us refute two more of their major errors. (This visible for us baptism of desire is an objective error of the SSPX and not part of Tradition before 1949).
In the above passage from the SSPX website:
Does the SSPX for you infer that the baptism of desire is visible for us?
Does the SSPX for you infer that the baptism of desire is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla ?
Bishop George Hay, Bishop of Edinburgh, Scotland (d. 1811), in his excellent Catechism, The Sincere Christian, devotes a good portion of Volume II of the work to the question of salvation out of the Church, because the Church is the rule or measure of faith, without which faith it is impossible to attain heaven. Natural good will is not enough to be saved. Anyone who dies with natural good will alone cannot be saved. However, if God gives the grace to embrace the true faith, and one accepts - that is baptism of desire - he is truly a member of the Church, and can therefore be saved inside the Church.(Theoretically he can be saved inside the Church.Practically we do not know such a case. So it is not relevant to the dogma on salvation. It is not an exception to all needing the baptism of water in the present times. There still is no known salvation outside the Church). In Volume I he explicitly affirms that baptism of desire saves souls who cannot receive baptism of water. (Yes as a possibility but no as a defacto reality.There is no defacto case in the present times.So there is no exception.) Let us conclude this article with the teaching of this great bishop:
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_baptisms.htmIn like manner, suppose a person living in a false religion dies without giving any sign of embracing the true faith, or without being reconciled to the Church of Christ, we can never say of such an one with certainty that he is lost; (we do not know who this person is specifically.It is a hypothetical case. How can a hypothetical case be an exception to the traditional teaching according to Fr.Leonard Feeney? The traditional teaching says every one needs the baptism of water for salvation) all that we can say must be under the same condition as in the other case: if he has actually died as he lived, separated from the true Church of Christ and without the true faith of Christ, he cannot be saved. But if God, of His great mercy, has given him in his last moments light and grace to see and embrace the true faith, and he has corresponded with so great a favor as God requires, he will be saved....(True and we do not know who he is. He would be known only to God. )Q. 28. But, in the case proposed, if a person( a hypothetical case) in his last moments shall receive the light of faith from God, and embrace it with all his heart, would this suffice to make him a member of the true Church in the sight of God?
A. Most undoubtedly; the case is the same in this as in that of baptism. Though Jesus Christ expressly says, "Except a man be born of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (Jn. 3:5), which establishes the absolute necessity of baptism for salvation; (every one needs the baptism of water for salvation and there are no defacto exceptions.There are no exceptions in 2014) yet, suppose a heathen should be instructed in the faith of Christ, and embrace it with all his heart, but die suddenly without baptism ... in the above dispositions with sincere repentance and a desire for baptism, this person will undoubtedly receive all the fruits of baptism from God, and therefore is said to be baptized in desire. (True theoretically. Here it is being implied that this is a defacto known case and so is an explicit exception to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney) In like manner, suppose a person brought up in a false religion embraces the true faith, which God gives him in his last moments - as it is absolutely impossible for him in that state to join the external communion of the Church in the eyes of men, yet he certainly will be considered united to her in the sight of God, by means of the true faith which he embraces, and his desire of being united to the Church, were it in his power. (Sincere Christian, Vol. 2, pp.322-323.). (Yes theoretically. Again it is being implied here that this is a known case and so becomes an exception to all needing to convert. A hypothetical case is considered a defacto example of salvation outside the Catholic Church)