Did Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre realize that the baptism of desire(BOD) issue was a mistake and there really was no BOD?
But at the cost of what difficulties do people in those countries where Christianity has not penetrated come to receive baptism by desire! Error is an obstacle to the Holy Ghost. - Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics 1
No one could know of a catechumen who desired the baptism of water and died before receiving it and was saved.So how can any us human beings know of this invisible catechumen who desired the baptism of water, died before receeiving it and was saved ? In a discussion we can only hope and believe such a person would be saved. We cannot suggest that this theoretical case is known, seen in the flesh and an explicit exception to all needing to enter the Church for salvation.An exception has to be real and an imaginary case cannot be real.
Yet the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case assumed that the imaginary catechumen was an exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).So it was concluded that not every one needs to enter the Catholic Church for salvation.
Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
So Archbishop Lefebvre may have finally realized that there was an error, when he stated this:-
But at the cost of what difficulties do people in those countries where Christianity has not penetrated come to receive baptism by desire! Error is an obstacle to the Holy Ghost. - Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics
I know that the saints and popes mentioned the baptism of desire.
The Council of Trent also refers to thedesiretherof.
For me the saints, popes and the Council of Trent, mentioned thedesirethereof in response to questions .It was in response to an old campaign to eliminate the dogma EENS.
There was no known case of a catechumen who was saved or not saved,with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water, to begin with.Since we humans cannot see a baptism of desire case in Heaven.Yet those who were opposed to EENS kept repeating and suggesting that an imaginary case is an exception to EENS.
Over the centuries there were people within the Church who were following the Masonic agenda just as in our times there can be popes, cardinals and bishops who are pro-Masonic.
Some of them over the centuries suggested in public that BOD was objectively known like the baptism of water.So the unknown catechumen was placed as 'a baptism' in the Baltimore Catechism with the approval of Cardinal Gibbons. It was clearly considered an exception by Cardinal Cushing, in Letter of the Holy Office 1949.This was the Letter his office made public some three years after it was issued by Rome( Vatican).It was an inter-office letter among bishops which was made magisterial.
Then this irrationality, of hypothetical BOD being not hypothetical, was placed in Vatican Council II (LG 14, LG 16 etc).The new principle was hypothetical cases (BOD etc) could be visible and known in the present times, in our defacto reality.The Vatican Council II ecclesiastics were aware that the excommunication of Fr.Leonard Feeney, supported by the Left, had still not been lifted.This was a message of the magisterium.
So with this new principle, a new 'Catholic' reasoning Vatican Council II in general suggests hypothetical cases are explicit and so are exceptions to the dogma EENS.
Ad Gentes 11 ( seeds of the Word), Lumen Gentium 8 (elements of sanctification and truth),in other religions,are mentioned as if they are known factors for salvation. Unitatis Redintigratio 3 refers to 'imperfect communion with the Church' as if we know or could know of someone saved as such outside the Church.UR 3, LG 8, LG 16 etc are all hypothetical cases!
It seems as if the Masons recognised this error in 1949 Boston and then knowingly placed it in Vatican Council II.
The error is then reflected in the Catechism of the Catholic Church(1995).
It is there in the theological papers of the International Theological Commission, Vatican.
It is included in the Balamand Declaration.
Upon this new Cushingite thinking we have Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus.They are not Feeneyite like the pre-Council of Trent magisterial documents.-Lionel Andrades