It is often said that the saints taught the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance.
However the saints knew that these were invisible cases.
So Thomas Aquinas referred to the man in the forest saved in invincible ignorance. He knew that this was someone not personally known .He could not see this personal physically in Heaven or on earth.However the liberal theologians have inferred that St. Thomas Aquinas was referring to a known case, which was an explicit exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
St.Robert Bellarmine teaches the baptism of desire according to Fr. Anthony Cekada.However it would be an invisible case.Since the baptism of desire can only be an invisible case for us human beings. It cannot be known or described in particular cases. It cannot be given like the baptism of water. It cannot be repeated physically like the baptism of water.So St. Robert Bellarmine would have been referring to a hypothetical case.It would be speculation with good will.
However Fr. Anthony Cekada mentions the baptism of desire with reference to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and criticizes Fr. Leonard Feeney. So like the liberal Jesuit theologians in the 1940's he is inferring that the baptism of desire refers to a visible case. This is his premise. Then he concludes like the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 that it is an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and criticizes the St. Benedict Centers in the USA. He says that their members are in mortal sin for not accepting the baptism of desire ( visible).
Similarly the Dimond Brothers at the Most Holy Family Monastery reject the baptism of desire. Since they think it is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the dogma cannot have any exceptions.However it is an exception only if it is a visible case.Like Fr. Cekada and the other sedevacantists they assume the baptism of desire refers to known cases, in the present times.
Similarly they interpret Lumen Gentium 16 as referring to a known case. So Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They reject Vatican Council II and then go into sedevacantism.Their reason for going into sedevacantism, it was confirmed, by a sedevacantist blogger, was Vatican Council II.
This is Vatican Council II ( Cushingite) in which hypothetical cases;invisible cases, are considered objectively visible.
When the error is pointed out to them they cite the saints and infer that the saints were referring to visible cases!