Boniface's premises are different from mine

Boniface celebrates 10 years for his blog Unam Sanctam Catholicam and he still cannot understand what I say. This is common among traditionalists who have their religious formation with the SSPX in some way.The error comes from Archbishop Lefebvre who accepted the irrationality in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.Their premises are different from mine.

Boniface calls what I write ridiculous and pathetic without explaining  to me with theology or Catholic doctrine where I am wrong.Ten years have past.He means well but he probably does not have a clue as to where to begin from.

He would find me confusing since for him, for example, the baptism of desire etc refers to an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).This is a given in the Catholic Church today.

But not for me.

For me the baptism of desire etc are not exceptions since I clarify that these cases are invisible in the present times and so they cannot be exceptions.An exception would have have to be a person known.An invisible person cannot be an exception.This has not registered with Boniface and he is sincere.

For Boniface the baptism of desire really refers to a visible person.Since only because it is visible can it be an exception or relevant to the dogma EENS. This is his inference whether he knows it or not.

This is a point he still has not been able to discuss over the last ten years.

And why should he ? Since the SSPX , the sedevacantists, the liberals, the present magisterium and the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary at the traditionalist St. Benedict Centers, all,  assume the baptism of desire etc are physically visible cases and so Vatican Council II (LG 16 etc) would be a rupture with the dogma EENS and the Syllabus of Errors. So they have rejected Vatican Council II(Cushingite) and it is the only Vatican Council II they know of.

I do not have to reject Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite-invisible BOD is invisible) and this confuses many traditionalists.

I hope I do not have to wait another 10 years before they break their conditioning.

This might help.Definitions of Feeneyism and Cushingism.

Definitions

Feeneyism: It is the old theology and philosophical reasoning which says there are no known exceptions past or present, to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).There are no explicit cases to contradict the traditional interpretation of EENS.It is practical. There obviously are no known cases of the baptism of desire (BOD),baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) in 2017.So there are no practical exceptions to EENS.Neither was BOD,BOB and I.I an exception to Feeneyite EENS in 1949 when the Letter of the Holy Office was issued to the Archbishop of Boston. The cardinals made an objective mistake.Similarly mentioning BOD and I.I in Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) relative to the traditional teaching on salvation was superflous.

Cushingism: It is the new theology and philosophical reasoning.It assumes there are known exceptions, past and present, to the dogma EENS, on the need for all to formally enter the Church.It assumes that the baptism of desire etc are not hypothetical but objectively known.In principle hypothetical cases are objective in the present times.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/07/rational-and-traditional-catholic.html

-Lionel Andrades