Brother Peter Dimond in his book does not mention that invisible cases of the baptism of desire cannot be a visible exception to EENS.

Brother Peter Dimond osb says that in the past the Church never made an exception to the dogmatic definitions of outside the Church there is no salvation. I agree with him. It is only when sedevacantists  wrongly infer that physically invisible cases of being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I), the baptism of desire(BOD) and the baptism of blood(BOB) are visible, that it is concluded that BOD, BOB and I.I are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). This is a mistake made by the sedevacantists and traditionalists. This is the common interpretation of the liberal theologians.

Brother Peter Dimond himself is part of this confusion. For example when he quotes Fr. Denis Fahey in the video he does not state that the priest could be referring to a hypothetical case known only to God. He is not referring to a defacto, concrete person known to be saved outside the Church. So in this way Fr. Fahey would not be contradicting the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS.

(2:12) When Bishop Robert Mckenna supports Fr.Fahey he could mean that hypothetical cases are not practical exceptions to the dogma EENS.

So when Fr.Fahey recognises the baptism of desire he is referring to a hypothetical and theoretical case for us human beings. Being invisible in our reality, the baptism of desire was never ever an exception to the dogma EENS.This is not said by Brother Peter Dimond.

The book by Brother Peter Dimond does not cover this point i.e invisible for us baptism of desire cannot be a visible exception to EENS.

(3:30)Bishop Sanborn like other sedevacantists needs to make it clear that there are no known people saved outside the Church.The emphasis is on known and unknown.
When there are no known people saved outside the Church there are no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Bishop Dolan and Fr.Anthony Cekada criticize Feeneyism since they assume there are known cases of the baptism of desire which are exceptions. Fr. Cekada has posted a long list of baptism of desire references from the saints. None of those saints have stated that there are known cases of the baptism of desire and so the baptism of desire is an explicit exception to Feeneyite EENS. This is the wrong inference of bishops Sanborn, Dolan and Fr. Cekada.

Members of other religions cannot be saved.They need to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation.The ordinary way of salvation is faith and baptism in the Catholic Church.It is not BOD, BOB and I.I.Defacto they all need to convert for salvation. De jure( in theory) we could speculate and hope that there are non Catholics saved in their religion. When they are in Heaven they would be Catholic.They would be made Catholic in a way known to God. Since in Heaven there are only Catholics.

However if a non Catholic is saved with the baptism of desire, with or without the baptism  of water,or in a manner known only to God, it would still be an invisible and unknown case on earth. So it cannot be an exception to the dogmatic teaching on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.

There is no known exceptional or extraordinary means of salvation for us human beings. If there was such a case it would only be known to God.So Fr. Jean Marie Gleize of the SSPX makes this mistake when he refers to the baptism of desire etc with reference to EENS in a book he has written on Vatican Council II.He does not affirm Feeneyite EENS since for him possibilities and speculations are known exceptions to all needing to be members of the Church in the present times for salvation.

'Hell is the eternal destiny of all non Catholics' who have died outside the Church according to Vatican Council II(AG 7, LG 14).Since they have died without faith and baptism, which is needed for salvation.

(7:41) Bishop Pirvanus of the CMRI also mistakes the baptism of desire as referring to visible people saved outside the Church.He mixes up  what is unknown as being known, what is hypothetical only ,as being objective.-Lionel Andrades