We could re-think Feeneyism and clarify that the baptism of desire has nothing to do with the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus since there are no baptism of desire cases in our reality in 2017. What has an invisible case to do with Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus?
It is the same with the past. Who could have seen St. Emerentiana in Heaven without the baptism of water and with the baptism of desire or saved in invincible ignorance with or without the baptism of water. ?
What is the point of argueing about the pros and cons of baptism of desire when there are no baptism of desire cases.
The case of the catechumen who sought the baptism of desire before he died will always be a theoretical case.
So how can a theoretical case be an explicit exception to the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus in 1949, 1965 or June 2017?