The Letter (1949) can be accepted in its first part which is traditional. The second part contradicts the first part. It is irrational, non traditional and heretical.

Can you help me see where the Letter of the Holy Office of  1948 holds  the heretical view? That is, do you think it must  be interpreted that way necessarily? Lionel: Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always  required that  he be incorporated into the Church actually as a  member...-Letter of the Holy Office 1949 This is heresy. The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus  (EENS) states every one needs to be a  member of the  Catholic Church for  salvation. It does not mention the  baptism of desire etc as an exception.  Since the baptism of desire(BOD),  baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance can only be  hypothetical. They cannot be known  concrete people in our life time.This is something obvious. So for centuries they were referring to  hypothetical cases only. BOD,BOB and I.I  without the baptism of water can only be  hypothetical.  This is something obvious. So they did not  elaborate upon it over the years. For example St. Thomas Aquinas held the  strict the interpretation of the dogma EENS  as did  St. Augustine.  Aquinas mentions the man in the forest in  invincible ignorance but does not state that this is a known person saved outside  the Church. The Letter of the Holy Office in that line  above in red  assumes that there are  exceptions to EENS. If there are  exceptions then there would have to be  known people saved outside the Church. Invisible people cannot be exceptions. But BOD, BOB and I.I are always invisible  for us human beings. So if there was a hypothetical case, a  possibility, a case only known to God, it  still cannot be an exception to EENS.  It has no connection to EENS for us human  beings. In that line above and in the criticism of  Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict  Center, the Letter  used a false premise ( invisible people are visible) and  inference( there is known salvation  outside the Church) to also contradict  the Catechism of Pope Pius X 1 From the Catechism of Pope Pius X 16 Q. Is Baptism necessary to salvation? A. Baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation, for our Lord has expressly said:  "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into  the Kingdom of God." The Church in Particular 9 Q. State distinctly what is necessary to be a member of the Church? A. To be a member of the Church it is necessary to be baptised, to believe and  profess the teaching of Jesus Christ, to participate in the same Sacraments, and  to acknowledge the Pope and the other lawful pastors of the Church. 24 Q. To be saved, is it enough to be any sort of member of the Catholic Church? A. No, to be saved it is not enough to be any sort of member of the Catholic  Church; it is necessary to be a living member. 27 Q. Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church? A. No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church,  just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah,  which was a figure of the Church. 11 Q. Who are they who are outside the true Church? A. Outside the true Church are: Infidels, Jews, heretics, apostates,  schismatics, and the excommunicated. 13 Q. Who are the Jews? A. The Jews are those who profess the Law of Moses; have not received  baptism; and do not believe in Jesus Christ. 14 Q. Who are heretics? A. Heretics are those of the baptised who obstinately refuse to believe some  truth revealed by God and taught as an article of faith by the Catholic  Church; for example, the Arians, the Nestorians and the various sects of Protestants. So the Letter(1949) suggests invisible cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are visible exceptions to what the Catechism of Pope Pius X says above on exclusive salvation in the  Catholic Church. The Letter assumes that BOD, BOB and I.I  refer to  known cases of someone saved  outside the Church and then it infers that BOD,  BOB and I.Iare exceptions to the traditional,  Feeneyite interpretation of EENS.2 So the Letter (1949) presents known exceptions to the Syllabus of Errors on an ecumenism of  return when there are no known exceptions,  there are no known cases as such. The Letter(1949) does away with the past  exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church which  is supported by the Syllabus and the Catechism  of the Council of Trent. This is a concrete error.Since without this  irrationality in the Letter(1949) Vatican Council  II (LG 8, LG 14, LG  16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc) is not a rupture  with the the past Catechisms, the dogma  EENS, the Syllabus of Errors on ecumenism and the old ecclesiology . Vatican Council II without this error from  the Letter would be in harmony with  Feeneyite EENS, or,  EENS as it was known to the missionaries and  Magisterium of the 16th century. The Letter (1949) can be accepted in its  first part which is traditional. The second  part contradicts the first part. It is  irrational, non traditional and heretical. -Lionel Andrades 1 OCTOBER 2, 2016 Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston contradicts the  Catechism of Pope Pius X   http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2016/10/letter-of-holy-office -1949-to.html 2 JANUARY 10, 2016 They assumed that the baptism of desire referred to a case of  someone saved outside the Church then they inferred that the  baptism of desire was an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam  nulla salus  http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2016/01/they-assumed-that-baptism-of-desire.html _________________________________________