BOD and BOB never were, nor are they now, considered "exceptions."
Agreed that being saved with implicit desire for the baptism of water was never exceptions,then and now.Neither martyrdom.
Also being saved with implicit desire or martyrdom were never baptisms like the baptism of water, in 1808 or now.Physically they could not know of any case at that time.So it was theoretical speculation.
If you receive BOD or BOB you are a member of Christ's One True Church--so what's your problem?
Yes, these are theoretical cases so they are not a problem with or without the baptism of water.They never were, so they were not mentioned in the text of the dogma by any of the three Councils, which defined extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
It only becomes problematic if you claim BOW is necessary IN ADDITION to BOB and BOD
It's theoretical so it is not problematic.Either way it is not an exception to EENS.
--or that BOB and BOD do not admit you to membership in the CHURCH.
It's theoretical. So one can argue...as long as it is not implied that these cases are known, and so are relevant or exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church for salvation.
Trent did define BOD, stating the necessity of water baptism, .."OR THE DESIRE THEREOF."
We accept it in theory.
Since Trent did not say that these cases were explicit, must be followed without the baptism of water or that they were exceptions to EENS.Trent did not make these inferences.-Lionel Andrades
Sedevacantists refuse to answer if LG 16 is an exception to EENS
Fr.Anthony Cekada has used an irrational premise ( BOD is explicit, objective in the present times ) and an irrational inference ( BOD is explicit and so an exception to EENS). http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/07/franthony-cekada-has-used-irrational.html
Fr.Anthony Cekada should have apologised to the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/07/franthony-cekada-should-have-apologised.html
Bishop Donald Sanborn interprets Vatican Council II with Marchetti's error
Sedevacantists jump ship http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/07/sedevacantists-jump-ship.html
Bishop Sanborn, Fr.Cekada agree : in the present times there are no explicit exceptions to EENS http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/07/bishop-sanborn-frcekada-agree-in.html
We do not know of a BOB and BOD exception in the present times. Here we can all agree since it is common knowledge.
It is a fact of life that we do not know any one saved with BOD or BOD today ( June 30,2015) Do you not agree here? Do not your readers agree here?
Sedevacantists are teaching irrationality
If you assume BOB and BOD are linked to EENS, then LG 16,LG 8, UR 3 etc will contradict EENS. Then V2 is heretical
For Fr.Cekada Lumen Gentium 16 is an exception to EENS when he does not know any LG 16 case in 2015 in the USA.Yet it is an exception to EENS for him
We cannot say that any particular person on earth today will be saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church but instead with baptism of desire.
The Fathers do not say that BOD and BOB are physically known to us in the present times to be exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church for salvation. http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/06/the-fathers-do-not-say-that-bod-and-bob.html
Pope Francis like the sedevacantists uses Marchetti's irrational premise and inference. He accepts the Council with this error
The EWTN report Tragic Errors of Fr.Leonard Feeney by Fr.William Most is based on irrational Cushingism http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/06/the-ewtn-report-tragic-errors-of.html
Marchettiism is a major heresy in the Catholic Church in the present times
For you UR 3 and LG 8 are exceptions to the dogma.Why? Who do you know today who is saved as mentioned in UR 3,LG 8?