1.Baptism of desire (BOD) is not relevant to EENS.So why does Fr. Anthony Cekada say the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary religious, at the St. Benedict Centers USA, are in mortal sin for not accepting BOD with reference to EENS.
2.The SBC say they accept BOD and it will be followed with the baptism of water.These are hypothetical cases. Why does Fr. Cekaga consider hypothetical cases as being exceptions or relevant to the dogma EENS?
3.So why does the professor at the sedevacantist seminary make this claim that they are in in mortal sin? Is he not wrong?
__
So LG 16 is also not an exception to EENS for you?
Cushingism says there are exceptions to EENS and Feeneyism says there are no exceptions.
IAAD will not say that he is a Feeneyite and not a Cushingite like Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Cekada.
He still does not comment on this.
Introibo Ad Altare Dei:
1. We can't see the dead. Period.
Lionel:
Yes that makes sense. So since we cannot see or know the dead- saved in BOD,BOB or I.I and allegedly without the baptism of water,these cases are not relevant or exceptions to the Feeneyite version of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). Agreed? This is Feeneyism.You accept this? Are you breaking ranks with Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Cekada?
IAAD does not comment on this too: Is LG 8 (subsist it ) an exception to the dogma? Why is it mentioned on the sedevacantist website?
For me LG 8 like LG 16 is not an exception to EENS. The sedevacantists hold the liberal position on this issue and they do not want to change.
Like priests in the main line churches in Rome, the sedevancantist priests do not want to comment upon this issue.
Lionel:
The subsist it confusion is based on B being an exception to A http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/07/subsist-it-confusion-based-on-b-is.html
'Subsistit it'(LG 8) is not a VISIBLE exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/subsistit-itlg-8-is-not-visible.html
-Lionel Andrades