PETER AND MICHAEL DIMOND THINK THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS EXPLICIT SO THEY ACCUSE CATHOLICS OF BEING IN HERESY

Once they realize that they can express the baptism of desire in terms of explicit and implicit they can also interpret Magisterium texts with terms explicit and implicit.

No one has recommended an explicit–explicit interpretation as is being used by Peter and Michael Dimond, sedevacantists.

For the sedevacantists the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) and many Catholics organisations and apologists, are in heresy. Since for the Dimond brothers, these Catholics affirm cases of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance - and these cases  are known personally to all concerned in 2012  for them to be  explicit exceptions.Ther are explicit exceptions to the  literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.  The Dimond brothers do not realize that the baptism of desire and being saved in implicit ignorance are never explicit for us .So they have been calling people heretics.

It is true that if you reject a  defined dogma with explicit exceptions it  is heresy.Invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire, though,  are not explicit! This is what's not realized. It is not realized by them and Catholics at large.

They cannot be invited into  the Church, as was done with the SSPX, since the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Ecclesia Dei and the Vatican Curia also assume, that the baptism of desire is explicit for us.

Then there are apologists on EWTN like Patrick Madrid, Jimmy Akins, Mark Shea who will not express the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They  know that those saved in invincible ignorance etc are not explicitly known to us.

However complicated all this may seem we have to remember that the basic issue is simple: the baptism of desire is never explicit.

Peter and Michael Dimond are correct in saying that Catholic Answers, the SSPX and the 'Vatican Council II sect' are heretics in as much they deny the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They do deny the dogma. They deny the dogma  while  assuming that the baptism of desire  is explicit and defacto known to us.

When they all realize that the baptism of desire is always explicit only to God and always implicit for us humans, then they will realize that there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma.

An Administrator on Karl Keatings Catholic Answers Forum for example says the Most Holy Family Monastery 'is heir to the heresy of Fr.Feeney (all non Catholics automatically go to hell)’.In other words all non Catholics do not automatically go to Hell because there can be some known cases saved with the baptism of desire etc. So there are known exceptions for this Catholic Answers Forum Administrator.(1) They have the same understanding of ‘exceptions’ as Peter and Michael Dimond whom they criticize.-Lionel Andrades

(1)

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=52968

SEDEVACANTISTS DIMOND BROTHERS VIOLATE THE PRINCIPLE OF NON CONTRADICTION
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/06/sedevacantists-dimond-brothers-violate.html#links

DIMOND BROTHERS ASSUME THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS VISIBLE TO US AND SO CRITICIZE JOHN SALZA
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/06/dimond-brothers-assume-baptism-of.html#links