Charles Coulombe, Brother Andre Marie MICM and Brother Thomas Augustine MICM have been discussing the baptism of desire with reference to justification and salvation when there are no physically visible cases.They do not state that the baptism of desire is not visible like the baptism of water and there are no known cases of the baptism of desire in our reality. So the baptism of desire is not relevant or an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS.
Sedevacantists Peter Dimond1 and Steven Speray 2 have written books on the baptism of desire while not mentioning that there are no seen in the flesh cases of the baptism of desire.We cannot see or meet someone saved with the baptism of desire.
There are also videos 3 discussing the baptism of desire and no one states that for the baptism of desire to be relevant or an exception to EENS as it was interpreted by the popes and saints there would have to be a known case.Invisible cases of the baptism of desire cannot be visible examples of salvation outside the Church.
Similarly Charles Coulombe discusses the baptism of desire on the video 4 and does not state that we do not know the name and surname of someone saved with the baptism of desire in the present times.Also no one could have seen someone in the past, in Heaven, saved with the baptism of desire,with or without the baptism of water.
Such an important point is left out in these discussions, in which every one is going in circles.They do not realize that it is the magisterium which has made the mistake and are keeping quiet on this subject since it changes the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre mistook the baptism of desire as being a known exception to Feeneyite EENS and Cardinal Burke makes the same mistake today.The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 with this error has been placed in the Denzinger.It is part of the 'magisterial teachings' I suppose just like the Buenos Aires Letter in the Acta Apostolica Sedis.In both cases we humans cannot know exceptions to the rule for faith (exclusive salvation) and morals(mortal sin).Theoretically we can postulate but in reality there are no known cases.
Christine Niles made this mistake in a Mic'd up program a few years back on the subject of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. She also interviewed Charles Coulombe on that program.
There are no baptism of desire cases in our reality and they are all discussing the baptism of desire with for and against positions.Theoretically they speculate and theologically they pro or contra.
When I point out to the traditionalists and sedevacantists there are no baptism of desire cases they either ban me or block me on their forums and websites.
Sedevacantists Bishop Donald Sanborn and Fr.Anthony Cekada have articles on line criticizing Feeneyite EENS and citing the baptism of desire as an exception. It is the same on the official website of the SSPX. The SSPX has been selling Fr. Francois Lasiney's book, Is Feeneyism Catholic? in which he assumed there are physically known cases of the baptism of desire.Otherwise how could the baptism of desire be an exception to Feeneyite EENS for him?
So it is no surprise that all of them reject Vatican Council II since Lumen Gentium 14( case of the catechumen) and Lumen Gentium 16( case of salvation in invincible ignorance) are not hypothetical cases for them as it is for me. LG 14 and LG 16 refer to known people, for them, saved outside the Church.
It is the same for Pope Benedict and he expressed it last March 2016 in the interview in Avvenire.He said that since there is salvation outside the Church.....