For Fr.Anthony Cekada and Fr.Francois Laisney (SSPX ) the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma according to Church documents of the past : this was Cardinal Marchetti's mistake

From E-mail correspondence:

Could you answer?

1) Are there Magisterial documents before 1949 ( Mystici Corporis, Council of Trent, Catechism of Pius X etc) which state that the baptism of desire cases are a) physically known to us, they refer to cases we can see in the flesh and b) they are explicit exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is was Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani inferred.(According to Fr.Anthony Cekada and Fr.Francois Laisney of the SSPX the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma according to Church documents of the past)

2) Did Magisterial documents before 1949 only refer to baptism of desire/implicit desire but did not say they were exceptions to all needing the baptism of water ?

3) So has the SSPX/ FSSP religous formation made a mistake when they assume that the baptism of desire is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus?

4) Did Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 make an objective mistake when he assumed there were exceptions to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney ?

 

Ask your FSSP/ SSPX priest!

-Lionel Andrades