Bro.Peter Dimond assumes that the Council of Florence contradicts the Council of Trent

Bro.Peter Dimond in another video assumes that the baptism of desire is  explicitly known to us and so is relevant to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.He also does not differentiate between the ordinary means of salvation and being saved implcitly.

He quotes sedevantists and other priests who say non Catholics can be saved in another religion. Bro.Peter Dimond does not differentiate between saved in general or saved implicitly.Then he does not mention if he is referring to explicit or implicit baptism of desire. The implicit, explicit distinction is not made and so there is confusion.The sedevantist priests could be referring to implicit baptism of desire known only to God.Bro,Peter Dimond could believe they are mentioning explicit baptism of desire for it to be an exception.

If the implicit-explicite explanation is used then we have the Council of Florence saying that every one on earth needs to explicitly enter the Catholic Church while implicitly a non Catholic could be saved in another religion and it would be known only to God. So it is not contradictory.

Then he does not mention that the ordinary means of salvation is Catholic Faith and the baptism of desire. This is the ordinary,normal means of salvation. The ordinary means of salvation is not the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance.So when some one mentions people being saved in another religion it is not the ordinary way.The sedevacantist preists are definitely not saying being saved in other religions is the ordinary means of salvation.

Then Bro.Peter Dimond also does not mention when is he referring to known or unknown salvation. There are no known exceptions to the dogma since we do not know any one in the present times saved in invincible ignorance. Unknown salvation refer to posibilities, something we accept in faith. Being saved in another religion is a possibility and not a known reality.

So when Bro.Peter Dimond quotes the priests who affirm the baptism of desire of the Council of Trent, and this baptism of desire being implicit and known only to God, it  does not contradict Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441.The Council of Florence does not contradict the Council of Trent.

Since he does not make the distinction between explicit and implicit salvation, i.e salvation is always explicit for God and implicit for us, he assumes Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The SSPX makes the same mistake. Since these cases are  known only to God and these cases are unknown to us LG 16 does not contradict AG 7 .Neither does LG 16 (invincible ignorance etc) contradict  the dogma on salvation or the Syllabus of Errors.The ordinary means of salvation is Catholic Faith and the baptism of water irrespective if somone is saved in another religion.

No Church Council , pope or Magisterial text including that of Vatican Council II says that being saved in invincible ignorane and the baptism of desire are explicit cases which are exceptions to the dogma. One has to imply this wrongly.Bro.Peter Dimond wrongly assumes that the baptism of desire is explicit and known to us.
-Lionel Andrades

COUNCIL OF TRENT DOES NOT SAY IF THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS DEFACTO OR DE JURE KNOWN TO US
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2011/06/council-of-trent-does-not-say-if.html#links