If Vatican Council II does not contradict EENS where is the doctrinal basis for Bishop Sanborn and Fr.Anthony Cekada's sedevacantism?

Fr.Anthony Cekada takes advantage of the ignorance of  young Catholics. He knows there are no known cases in the present times (2015) of people saved in invincible ignorance (I.I) and the baptism of desire(BOD).He knows there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) in 2015.So even though he knows there are no exceptions to Feeneyism he keeps material online  which says there are exceptions.1

 

He knows hypothetical cases of the past cannot be exceptions to Feeneyism, today.Yet he has an article on his sedevacantist website making just this claim.

 

He was informed about all this years back and even recently. Since young sedes are not aware of his error, he presses his luck.No one objects so he gets away with all that irrationality and error. He does all this after being informed. It is promoting a lie, a falsehood, after being told about it.

 

He cannot write an article refuting what I say.Neither can he write an article supporting me.For an article of support would mean there is no doctrinal basis for his sedevacantism.Lumen Gentium 16  cannot be an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. There are no visible cases. No objective cases.So Vatican Council II does not contradict EENS. It is based on this point that he and others have rejected the popes and gone into sedevacantism.For them there are exceptions to EENS in VC2.

 

So many times I have asked him and young sedes on Twitter if Lumen Gentium 16 can  be an exception to EENS since we do not know of any LG 16 case in 2015.No one dares to answer.Since it would prove Bishop Donald Sanborn and Fr.Cekada in error in their articles on the Internet.

 

If LG 16 is an exception to EENS it means that we know these cases  saved in I.I in 2015.Only if they were known they could be exceptions.They would have to exist in our reality.They would be known by name.
 

This was the original mistake of Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani, in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston with reference to Fr.Leonard Feeney.The error was supported by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican when he produced the Catechism of the Catholic Church. 2 It was supported by all the popes since Pius XII.This error is fixed in the minds of Catholic liberals, traditionalists and sedevacantists.

 

So many times I have to keep repeating on Twitter to young sedes that  there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS. This  continues because Fr.Anthony Cekada and Bishop Donald Sanborn, will not pull down their articles which say the opposite.

 

If Vatican Council II does not contradict EENS where is the doctrinal basis for their sedevacantism? There is none.Bishop Sanborn and Fr.Cekada know this but will not admit it in public.

-Lionel Andrades

1.
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/


2.

The Ratzinger Error is there in most of the magisterial documents issued during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/07/the-ratzinger-error-is-there-in-most-of.html