Catholic Martyr, I am going to engage you now against all better instincts.
You ask why I can't see that all Popes since Benedict XV after Anti-Popes. Why can't YOU see that baptism of desire and communion in one species are the same -- provided for by the very words of Christ Himself, and brought out and defined by the Council of Trent.
Christ, who is All-Knowing, knew that one day the Church would need to defend itself against Protestants by limiting communion to one species. But when he first speaks about communion, he mentions explicitly both species: "He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him."
Those who believe that today are following in the footsteps of the condemned Hussites. Yet Jesus said it. Why?
Well, let's look at Christ's similar phrase in John about baptism, where two things are required. "Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
Water therefore MUST be necessary, right? Keep reading. Because in both cases, two verses later, Christ slightly changes his formulas.
Back to communion in one species. Look at how Christ FOLLOWS UP his original statement, slightly changing the wording: "This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever."
Now it is all about the bread. No mention of wine. This allowed the Council of Trent to defend against the Protestant heretics, and they did so by saying that anyone who says that you must take BOTH the bread and the wine would from then on be anathema.
Now, back to baptism. Just like He did with communion, He does with baptism: "The Spirit breatheth where he will; and thou hearest his voice, but thou knowest not whence he cometh, and whither he goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit."
Here He leaves out the regeneration through water, just like He left out the wine. The implication is clear. The wine IS important. The baptism of water IS important. But He can still save you without either, because He is God, with whom all things are possible... Isn't He wonderful?
Jesus used lacunae in His language so that the Church would have a certain mobility against heresies. Protestants and their modern descendants of the Feenyesque stripe are literal-minded. You even talk like a Protestant, all severe and harsh, proudly stating when you introduced yourself that you won't say "God bless you" unless people agree with you. That is a sin against charity and makes you sound like a dour, warmongering Calvinist. Is it love that draws you to the Church or strife and contention? Fighting heresies is one thing, but I'm afraid your obsession doesn't qualify.
Protestants THINK they know exactly what the Bible says but they don't really understand the mysterious speech of Jesus and how it provides for all contingencies that will ever arise throughout history, which He knew from beginning to end and in every detail. You can't just take a phrase out of context and plunk it down as if it is the whole of the Law.
Jesus left it up to His Church, guided by the Holy Ghost, to redefine dogmas as it became necessary. Just as the Council of Trent limited communion to the bread, the body of Christ, it also allows for baptism of desire, though this was not taught before. This is now defined, and if it wasn't then, it certainly was by 1917 ( under the TRUE POPE Benedict XV ), in Canon Law where it is stated that catechumens are to receive Catholic burial. Not to mention many doctors believed in it, Aquinas and Bellarmine among them.