Peter and Michael Dimond at the Most Holy Family Monastery are not able to face a new reality.

I have been asking Peter and Michael Dimond if the baptism of desire(BOD) refers to personally known people , saved outside the Church and of course they do not want to talk about it . They have put away the Baptism of desire as non existing.But the very fact that hey consider BO an exception to EENS and so they reject it implies that there are known cases of the BOD for them. 

Anyway, like Bishop Donald Sanborn they tell be not to spam them.They do not understand what I am saying.

I tell sedevacantists that there is a  former Dean of Theology at a Pontifical University in Rome, who is now the Rector of that universtity.He confirmed that he did not know of any BOD case in our reality and so BOD is not an exception to EENS for him.So this changes our interpretation of Vatican Council II. All the traditionalists are interpreting LG 16 etc as exceptions to Feeneyite EENS and the old ecclesiology of the Church.

This is of no import to the sedevacantists who wrongly blame the popes for Vatican Council II, when the fault lies with their false premise.

Peter and Michael Dimond, on their website promote a book  on the baptism of desire  and have not covered this point.See the right had side tags on this blog for the many reports I have written about them and this issue over the years.

Maybe they could answer my question and then update their book.Of course they would  have to delete larges sections of their book, which were written assuming  BOD referred to visible and known people. They would  also have to review their position with reference to the 'Vatican Council II sect' ':Since the common interpretation for them is BOD refers to a known caseIt is an exception to Feeneyite EENS and the old ecclesiology, so they reject it.

They have called so many people heretics when the Council is not a rupture with EENS. They did not know abut )Vatican Council (Feeneyite).Can they face this new reality?
-Lionel Andrades