We can affirm the first part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 (LOHO) which supports traditional EENS and reject the second part of LOHO which contradicts the first part, with the use of a false premise to interpret the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I) .LOHO assumes wrongly that BOD and I.I are objective exceptions to EENS

 We can affirm the first part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 (LOHO) which supports traditional EENS and reject the second part of LOHO which contradicts the first part, with the use of a false premise to interpret the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I).LOHO assumes that BOD and I.I are objective exceptions to EENS. -Lionel Andrades