CathInfo.com

I can accept debate about BOD for catechumens and BOB for martyrs.

But I cannot accept anyone who claims that salvation is possible without explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation as anything but a dullard, a weasel and an apostate, nor anyone who claims that such a thing as baptism of "implicit desire", for those who die as apostates in denial or ignorance of Christ (which all jews, Muslims, pagans and atheists are), is anywhere to be found in divine revelation, either cotained in the scriptures or in apostolic tradition, as anything but a damned liar too.

With regard to the sede position, I came back to the Church when I was older, at that time I really didn't know anything about the Faith. I read profusely for years and almost from the beginning, concluded that JPII was a punishment from God and I told people that. However, I have never pushed the sede position on anyone mainly because all the sede groups teach that anyone can be saved without baptism and Christ in any way shape or form. Same goes for the SSPX. If the sedes and SSPX came to the conclusion that say the dogmatic Athanasian Creed means the complete opposite of what it says by their "theological analysis" , how can I believe them on the sede position, since our current situation is unprecedented while EENS is likely the most dogmatically docuмented teaching in the Church.

The 1917 Code of Canon Law is very clear on the topic:

CAN. 1239 § 2. Catechumeni qui nulla sua culpa sine baptismo moriantur, baptizatis accensendi sunt.

"Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized."
The Sacred Canons by Rev. John A. Abbo. St.T.L., J.C.D., and Rev. Jerome D. Hannan, A.M., LL.B., S.T.D., J.C.D.

Commentary on the Code:
"The reason for this rule is that they are justly supposed to have met death united to Christ through Baptism of Desire."


May I inquire of which "sede groups" you are referring?  And if at all possible, a reference to the statement made?