I already told you that you Feeneyites horribly confuse the issue, and this time I think it is deliberate on your part. The only matter discussed by the Doctors and theologians before Vatican II was not at all about baptism of desire but rather about explicit/implicit faith in Christ in those who receive the sacramental effect by this extraordinary means. That is the only topic that the Doctors and others considered an open question and that therefore can be discussed by Catholics, maybe I'll start a thread on that. I believe everything the Doctors believed on this subject, if you think otherwise, quote them against something I have said.
The Dimond link is so absurd it hardly merits a response - one example of their "reasoning" is like this: we know by our private judgment that Pope Innocent III's authoritative teaching is incorrect in other respects (like they imagine on circuмcision and original sin), therefore we use that same private judgment to reject this teaching of his as well. Classic liberals.
Implicit desire being sufficient for salvation is a novelty and is a direct refutation of the dogma "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus". Novelties that contradict revealed Church dogma are heresies. After modernism infected the Church, even Catholic themselves, live under a policy of ambiguity, double talk, concealment, and subtle contradiction, in order to please the world and the non-Catholics.
Calling defenders of EENS as written, derogative terms such as feeneyites, dimondites, and the such; only shows utter ignorance of the authentic Catholic Faith, in the global, universal, historical sense. Also shows a lack of broader understanding on how the modernist heresy plagued the Church since way before 1949. Strict adherence to EENS is what the Church always taught and why She has always came out victorious after so many other heresies and persecutions. This goes far far far beyond Fr. Feeney.