I agree with Peter and Michael Dimond on the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, I also reject explicit baptism of desire, however I accept implicit baptism of desire which perhaps they are not yet familiar with. So for me the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are not exceptions to their literal interpretation of the dogma.
Peter and Michael Dimond have called so many people heretics since they have not accepted that the baptism of desire is always implicit. It can never ever be explicit for us.
When your called a heretic ask them, “How can I be called a heretic when the baptism of desire is not explicit?” Explain to them that if we do not know any one with the baptism of desire etc how can they be considered exceptions to the dogma on salvation.
I affirm the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and also affirm the baptism of desire of the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent was referring to an implicit baptism of desire since the baptism of desire cannot be explicit for us.
Peter and Michael Dimond can do the same and enter the Catholic Church. They can hold the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, continue to reject being explicitly saved in known-to-us baptism of desire and invincible ignorance, accept the baptism of desire of the Council of Trent, attend the Traditional Latin Mass in the Catholic Church and continue with a media apostolate based on Tradition.
Once they understand that the baptism of desire is implicit they will have a new perspective on Pope John Paul II’s Dominus Iesus 20, Catechism of the Catholic Church 845,845, Redemptoris Missio 55 etc.The pope was affirming the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So was the Catechism and Vatican Council II.
When Peter and Michael Dimond refer to widespread heresy and schism within the Catholic Church they are correct. However for me presently even the Dimond brothers are a part of it.-Lionel Andrades