Fr.Anthony Cekada who has had his religious formation under Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre has done extensive research on the baptism of desire and he was not aware that the baptism of desire was not phyically visible it was not known in personal cases and so it was not an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS.
It's really funny.
Bad enough after so much research on a non existing subject i.e the famous catechumen who died before receiving the baptism of water which he allegedly sought and did not receive he says the Feeneyites are in mortal sin (for not accepting his understanding of physically visible baptism of desire).
Then reseearching this fictitious case, this 'zero case', he concludes that every one must accept this non existing case as actually being known in our reality.The St. Benedict Centers who are recognised by the Catholic Church, of course for him are in mortal sin.They refused to admit that there are known cases of BOD which are exceptions to Fr. Leonard Feeney's interpretation of EENS.
All Catholics are obliged to adhere to the common teaching on baptism of blood and baptism of desire. According to the norms outlined above, the Feeneyite position represents either theological error, error in Catholic doctrine or heresy. Those Catholics who adhere to the Feeneyite position on baptism of desire and baptism of blood commit a mortal sin against the faith. - Fr.Anthony Cekada 1.
The sedevacantist priest is actually changing and rejecting the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with physically visible baptism of desire and does not consider this a mortal sin.
He has changed the NIcene Creed to 'I believe in three or more known baptisms' and does not consider this a mortal sin.
He is interpreting Vatican Council II's LG 14 ( catechumen with the desire for the baptism of water) and LG 16( being saved in invincible ignorance) as referring to physically known cases.So Vatican Council II, for him, with this false premise, must emerge as a break with Tradition.It is rupture with the dogma EENS and the Syllabus of Errors.This is what is being taught by him to traditionalist seminarians.
Like Archbishop Lefebvre he assumes that the baptism of desire is known and an exception to EENS.Those Catholics who do not accept BOD as being physical to the naked eye, as being personally known in particular cases to be exceptions or relevant to EENS, are said to be in mortal sin.
Bishop Donald Sanborn supports Fr. Cekada on this issue at the sedevantist seminary in Florida,USA.He interprets Vatican Council II with visible to the naked eye BOD (LG 14) and seen in the flesh cases of people saved in invincible ignorance without the baptism of water( LG 16).
If he considered LG 16 and LG 14 as being hypothetical and not explicit, Vatican Council II would not contradict the dogma EENS or the old ecclesiology.
There are no known cases of the baptism of desire yet this is the reasoning of Fr.Cekada.
Conclusions from the Foregoing about Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood
1. All twenty-five theologians teach baptism of blood and baptism of desire, and none reject the teaching, so both doctrines are held by common consent.
(None of them can state that the baptism of desire is explicit and so is an objective exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This would be irrational.)
2. Some theologians categorize the doctrines as theologically certain.
(Theologically certain when there are no known cases?)
3. Some theologians categorize the doctrines as Catholic doctrine.
(How can invisible cases of the baptism of desire be considered objectively visible or a sacrament?)
4.. Some theologians categorize the doctrines as de fide (of the faith).- Fr.Anthony Cekada
John Salza and Robert Siscoe did not cover this point in their book on sedevacantism since they both make the same error.
Fr.Anthony Cekada like Salza and Siscoe contradict St. Robert Bellarmine on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.