Did you mean baptism of desire? For we can, that is, it is possible, for us to see physically people in heaven or earth saved with baptism of water, as several instances of it have occurred, as in the case of Fatima, etc.
What am I missing?
I am glad you asked this is at the centre of what I am saying.
I mean that in August 2016 we are unable in general to physically see someone in Heaven or on earth saved with the baptism of desire, without the baptism of water.
So the baptism of desire today August22,2013, for us humans, can only be a theoretical subject.It is something hypothetical. We can accept it as a possibility.Only!
Now for there to be an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS),there would have to be someone in 2016 who is physically visible or we must know him or her personally.We could know his or her name and surname.So then we can say, "See, XYZ is an exception to the dogma EENS, since he has been saved without the baptism of water.It is a known case.So everyone does not need to formally enter the Church for salvation, every one does not need to be Catholic to avoid Hell.There are exceptions to the dogma"
So for the SSPX and FSSP to assume that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma EENS, would mean that they know or can know someone who is an exception to EENS.This is impossible!
There cannot be any exception!
Yet the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 assumed that the baptism of desire was an exception to EENS and this was accepted by the magisterium and Archbishop Lefebvre.
The Council of Trent mentions 'the desire theorof' but did not call it a baptism nor did it state that it referred to an explicit case or that it was an exception to EENS.It was something said with good will.Yet all these errors had to be assumed by liberal theologians.
Cardinal Gibbons in Baltimore interpreted 'the desirethereof' as being a baptism like the baptism of water.Cardinal Cushing in Boston assumed that the baptism of desire was explicit and so an exception to EENS.
So what was an imaginary case was assumed to be objectively known.
So now the baptism of desire in theology can be interpreted as being visible or invisible.This is a new precedent in the Church. It is from here that the New Theology takes off.
So we have a visible baptism of desire which I call Cushingism.It is an explicit exception to EENS.
And we have an invisible baptism of desire which I call Feeneyism. It is not explicit in 2016 and so is irrelevant to EENS.
In this way we can have a Cushingite or Feeneyite Vatican Council II.The Cushingite interpretation is irrational.However it is the interpretation of the SSPX and that of Fr. Aldo Rossi and the other SSPX priests in Italy.
It is also the interpretation of the FSSP priests where you live.-Lionel Andrades