'the whole world misunderstands except you is beyond bold.'
If the whole world violates the Principle of Non Contradiction then the whole world is wrong.
If you and the other sedevacantists assume imaginary cases are physically visible in 2016 then you all are wrong.
If for you it is normal that someone saved in invincible ignorance and allegedly without the baptism of water is a known exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus( EENS); the 'rigorist interpretation', then something is seriously wrong,especially so after having explained it to you.
If your website can cite a whole list of popes and saints citing the baptism of desire and you infer that they were physically visible cases instead of theoretical possibilities expressed with goodwill and speculation, then there is something seriously wrong.May be you should discuss this reasoning with someone even if he is not a Catholic,perhaps he could help.
I have cited an Achbishop, a Dean of Theology at a pontifical univeristy in Rome, numerous priests and a lay apologist who support me and yet you suggest that this is a persona view and an irrational reasoning.
I support my view with magisterial documents interpreted without your irrational inference,that is invisible cases are visible and so are exceptions to traditional ecclesiology and theology.I affirm Vatican Council II ( without your irrational premise), the Cateshism of the Catholic Church (1995- Feeneyite interpretation), the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the 16th century missionaries,the Catechism of Pope Pius X ( with invincible ignorance referring to a hypothetical case),the Letter of the Holy Office ( first part),Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441 on outside the Church there is no salvation, the Nicene Creed with 'I believe in one known baptism and not three or more', the Athanasius Creed on outside the Church there is no salvation,Dominus Iesus , Redemptoris Missio and other magisterial documents interpreted with the theology of Feeneyism and not Cushingism.
Can you beat this?
You reject Vatican Council II ( Cushingite), just as I do and assume that this is the only interpretation of the Council possible.
You also accept the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which contradicts the first part and is responsible for the Cushingite ( Rahner theology) interpretation of Vatican Council II.
So with this Cushingism you will be contradicting the Syllabus of Errors, Catechism of Pope Pius X etc and would assume that this is the only interpretation of magisterial texts possible, not knowing that your reasoning is based on a false premise.
I use a different premise to interpret magisterial documents and so my conclusion is different.It is traditional and non heretical.