I have cited many cases where Bishop Fellay inferred that there are physically known cases when the reference is to only hypothetical and unknown people in our reality e.g Lumen Gentium 8 (subsist it).

Lionel, show me where Abp Lefebvre or Bp Fellay said there are physically known cases of baptism of desire (BOD) for those who were not yet canonized by the Church. Show me where these two bishops identified these living BOD people.

Lionel: 

I have cited  many cases where Bishop Fellay inferred that there are physically known cases when the reference is to  only hypothetical and unknown people in our reality e.g Lumen Gentium 8 (subsist it). LG 8 is not an example of salvation outside the Church, the text does not state it.So it is not an exception to the old ecumenism of return.But for Bishop Fellay it is all this. Since for him it refers to a known person saved outside the Church. For him it is an example of a physically visible person saved outside the Church.

This was also the reasoning of Archbishop Lefebvre when he interpreted Vatican Council II. This is the norm for the SSPX bishops.

Most of their false inferences are made with Vatican Council II.I have cited you the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which wrongly infers that hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire etc are non hypothetical and so they become  exceptions to Feeneyite EENS. Hypothetical cases which are exceptions to EENS are physically visible cases.This is the common false inference.This was not objected to by Archbishop Lefebvre.He accepted this inference.

So Vatican Council II had to be a rupture with Tradition and the old ecclesiology for him. His premise was false and so his conclusion would have to be non-traditional.

It think it is the same for you.

This is the norm in the SSPX. This is the norm for the sedevacantists too.

________________________________________

Show me where these two bishops identified these living BOD people.

Lionel: 'Living BOD people', for me there are of course no such living BOD people. You have not been able to say the same,theologically.

There are no living BOD people, I repeat.This is common knowledge. Practically we cannot meet a living BOD person.

But in theology a wrong inference can be made. It can be wrongly implied that there are living people saved with the baptism of desire, outside the Church.

This happens when it is said that there are exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.This is the new theology. The moment you say that there is an exception to Feeneyite EENS, you imply that there are living cases,living people saved outside the Church. Since only a person alive could be an exception to  EENS.

So there could be different inferences and the exceptions are not restricted to BOD.

They could be saved for you with LG 16(invincible ignorance), LG 14( the case of the catechumen who desired the baptism of water), LG 8( 'elements of sanctification and truth' outside the Church/subsist it), UR 3( imperfect communion with the Churc) etc.

You may say that in reality there are no exceptions for you.But in theology you accept exceptions.

You accept Bishop Fellay suggesting LG 8(subsist it) is an exception to EENS.

You accept Archbishop Lefebvre accepting the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 in which they indicate that BOD is an exception to Feeneyite EENS.

You have accepted Pope Benedict saying in March 2016(Avvenire) that EENS is no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century. Since there was a development with Vatican Council II. He meant there were exceptions in Vatican Council II.

He had a choice.He could have said that EENS today is the same as it was in the 16th century and BOD, BOB and I.I are not exceptions. This would be orthodoxy but Pope Benedict did not say it when he 'broke his silence'. None of the traditionalists and sedevacantists complained. Since they too believe there are exceptions to EENS in Vatican Council II.This is why they reject the Council .

-Lionel Andrades