Sedes go hilarious

So why does the professor at the sedevacantist seminary, Fr.Anthony Cekada, say the communities of Fr. Leonard Feeney are in mortal sin for not accepting visible for us baptism of desire ? Is he wrong?

Eric Gajiewski : No, he is not wrong.

Lionel: In other words like Eric and Fr.Anthony Cekada we have to accept that invisible for us baptism of desire is visible.

Then we have to conclude that this invisible baptism of desire which really is visible, is a visible  exception to all needing to be members of the Church for salvation. It contradicts the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS)

Then we have to conclude that there is known salvation outside the Church since invisible baptism of desire is visible.

So we infer that since there is known salvation outside the Church with visible for us baptism of desire  the popes and saints were wrong who affirmed EENS without visible for us baptism of desire.

When the popes and saints who said that invisible baptism of desire which is visible for us now is not an exception to EENS in the past, they were in mortal sin according to Fr.Cekada and Bishop Donald Sanborn at the Most Holy Trinity seminary, Florida.

Those who do not say that invisible for us baptism of desire is visible and is an exception to traditional EENS ,will be in mortal sin according to Fr.Anthony Cekada.

The sedevacantists and traditionalists who today do not say that invisible for us baptism of desire is not really invisible,instead it is visible, are not in  mortal sin.

While the communities of Fr. Leonard Feeney who say that invisible for us baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma EENS, even though it is visible for the sedevacantists and traditionalists, are in mortal sin.

Those who admit that they can see BOD, BOB and I.I cases in the present times will not be in mortal sin.So Fr. Antony Cekada is not wrong for Eric Gajiewski.

-Lionel Andrades