Similar to Latinist Ryan Grant, the sedevacantists Bishop Mark Pivarunas and Bishop Donald Sanborn interpret the Catechism of the Council of Trent and Pope Pius X as a rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Feeneyite) and the past exclusivist ecclesiology

Similar to Latinist Ryan Gran, the sedevacantists Bishop Mark Pivarunas and Bishop Donald Sanborn interpret the Catechism of the Council of Trent and Pope Pius X as a rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Feeneyite) and the past exclusivist ecclesiology, that of the missionaries in the 16th century.

For all of them the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) are exceptions to Feeneyite  extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).

But not for me.

They infer that there are known people saved outside the Church with BOD, BOB and I.I and without faith and the baptism of water.They would have to be known non Catholics saved outside the Church, for them to be exceptions to EENS, as it was interpreted over the centuries.

So with known- for- them BOD,BOB and I.I they have rejected the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS. For them outside the Church, there is salvation and it is known in personal cases.
This is why even Vatican Council II is a rupture with the dogma EENS for them.They reject Vatican Council II since visible cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church, referenced in LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, are examples of salvation outside the Church.
Things are so bad with this new theology, Cushingite theology,that they interpret BOD, BOB and I.I mentioned in the old Catechisms, as being a rupture with EENS as it was interpreted by the Jesuits in the Middle Ages.
But for the popes and the saints the old catechisms were not a rupture with the traditional 'strict' interpretation of the dogma EENS.
Why not?
Since it is common sense that BOD,BOB and I.I could only refer to hypothetical cases.
But for the traditionalists and sedevacantists today, BOD, BOB and I.I  are exceptions to EENS. This is how the liberal theologians also interpreted EENS and BOD, BOB and I.I.
This was the reasoning in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, which Pope Pius XII, Cardinal Ottaviani and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre approved.
To interpret the catechisms of Trent, Baltimore and Pius X as a rupture with EENS; as a rupture with  the traditional understanding of salvation being exclusive in the Catholic Church - is an innovation.
This is how Ryan Grant who has translated some of the writings of St. Robert Bellarmine interprets the catechisms. He has not denied it.
None of them deny it-Roberto dei Mattei, Chris Ferrara...
They all made a mistake on Vatican Council II all these years.
I repeat they all made a mistake on Vatican Council II over these 5o years.
They interpreted BOD, BOB and I.I wrongly.
When St. Robert Bellarmine and the Jesuits of his time mentioned BOD, BOB and I.I, for Ryan Grant, these are references to concrete people  and not hypthetical cases.
St.Robert Bellarmine did not make a mistake.
So Ryan Grant rejected  EENS ( Feeneyite) since he is a Cushingite, like those Jesuits  at Vatican  Council II (1965).
When I mention this to the sedevacantist Fr. Benedict Hughes, in an e-mail, he refers to the writings on the baptism of desire on their CMRI website.
His bishop,Mark Pivarus, rejects Feeneyite EENS.The baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma EENS for Fr. Benedict Hughes too.It is the same with all the sedevcantist groups in the USA.
So when the baptism of desire is mentioned in the catechisms of Trent, Pius X etc, Fr.Benedict and the CMRI community,interpret those catechisms as a rupture with the past ecclesiology of the Church. The dogma EENS has become obsolete. They can only interpret EENS with BOD,BOB and I.I being exceptions.So so they have a new, EENS, EENS,Cushingite.They say"every one needs to enter the Catholic Church for salvation except for...".Except for those saved in visible for them baptism of desire etc.
The old catechisms are not a rupture with Feeneyite EENS for me.There are no 'except for' cases for me in 2018.Neither are BOD,BOB and I.I a rupture with Feeneyite EENS for me.So Vatican Council II also is not a rupture with Feeneyite EENS for me, since LG 8,LG 14, LG16, UR 3  etc not exceptions to EENS.
How can the old catechisms contradict the old exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church ?!
Traditionalists are supporting this non traditional theology and creating new doctrines which are a rupture with Tradition?!
-Lionel Andrades