The popes before Pius XII knew that the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) always referred to hypothetical cases.But the popes from John XXIII to Francis,if they knew about it did not mention this in public.They let Catholics believe that BOD, BOB and I.I were visible and known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).From Pope Paul VI this was the new interpretation of the Council.

 

The popes before Pius XII knew that the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) always referred to hypothetical cases.But the popes from John XXIII  to Francis,if they knew about it did not mention it.They let Catholics believe that BOD, BOB and I.I  were visible and known.So they became objective  exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).From Pope Paul VI this was the new interpretation of the Council and EENS.
 

Pope Pius XII did not clarify.His Mystici Corporis can be interpreted with or without the error.He allowed Catholics to remain confused.There was a great mix up between  what is invisible as being visible.People who did not exist were considered exceptions to the  dogma EENS.
 

The error was carried over into Vatican Council II.Now we know that there are two interpretations of the Council and the conclusion is different.One is a rupture with Tradition and the other is a continuity.

If LG8, LG 14, LG16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc refer to invisible or visible non Catholics, determines the conclusion. With a different premise, one of two, there is a different inference.
 

For the liberals and the Lefbvrists, BOD, BOB and I.I are exceptions to EENS. So they imply there are personally known non Catholics saved outside the Church.Otherwise how could there be exceptions.Invisible people cannot be exceptions. It is the same for the sedevcantists. Michael and Peter Dimond, the CMRI and Bishop Donald Sanborn's seminary in Florida, USA make the same mistake.

For me LG 8 etc are hypothetical only.So they cannot be exceptions to the strict interpretation of EENS. The ecclesiology of the Church, after Vatican Council II, is the same,as before the Council.There are no exceptions mentioned in the Council-text, to an ecumenism of return, the Syllabus of Errors of Pops Pius and the Athansius Creed( outside the Church no salvation).The Lefebvrists had it wrong for 50 years.
 

The Catechism of the Catholic Church(CCC 847-848 on invincible ignorance) does not contradict EENS. Nor does it contradict Ad Gentes 7 ( all need faith and baptism) mentioned in CCC 846.
 

Fr. Leonard Feeney was correct when he said that there are no practical exceptions of the baptism of desire.This is something obvious. It is a given.The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was wrong.It  assumed BOD, BOB and I.I were examples of known people saved outside the Church.So it created exceptions to the traditional interpretation of EENS.
 

Pope Pius XII should have publicly supported Fr. Feeney and criticized Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston.His silence has led to an Arian-like heresy which has spread throughout the Church.

-Lionel Andrades