I agree with you if you say there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus since there are no known cases of the baptism of desire.Period. We cannot meet or see someone saved with the baptism of desire.

I agree with you if you say there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus since there are no known cases of the baptism of desire.Period. We cannot meet or see someone saved with the baptism of desire.

So the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made an objective error when it assumed the baptism of desire and blood or being saved in invincible ignorance happened without the baptism of water ( as if some one could prove it) and that they were known examples of salvation outside the Church ( as if any one could physically prove it).

-Lionel

Chris Ferrara and the SSPX bishops use the irrationality of the Letter ( hypothetical-objective exceptions) to interpret Vatican Council II with the hermeneutic of rupture

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/chris-ferrara-and-sspx-bishops-use.html

-Lionel Andrades

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/best-argument-baptism-desire/#.Vvkdy9KLQdU