Michael and Peter Dimond are correct in accepting the strict interpretation of EENS and rejecting BOD, BOB and I.I as exceptions while Catholics at large, including Bill Donohue and Jim Likoudis are wrong.

When Michael and Peter Dimond would hold the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), citing the popes and saint, Jim Likoudis and Bill Donohue could only respond  by saying that they are sedevacantists. Theologically they were confused  and could not say that the Church Fathers, popes and saints were wrong.

Now I am saying the same thing and they cannot accuse me of being a sedevacantist or traditionalist who attends only the Latin Mass. I am neither.

They cannot say that I reject the BOD,BOB and I.I 1. I accept them as being hypothetical cases only. I reject them as referring to objective non Catholics saved outside the Church. For us humans BOD, BOB and I.I can only be theoretical and hypothetical. We have no choice here.

So I am affirming the strict, traditional interpretation of EENS, like the Magisterium of the past and also hypothetical and speculative cases of BOD, BOB and I.I.It is not either-or for me.

So when I am at Holy Mass in the vernacular or in Latin, I affirm EENS, the Nicene Creed, Athansius Creed, Vatican Council II, the Catechisms,BOD,BOB and I.I, an ecumenism of return(since there is no other rational choice, theologically) based on EENS, the Social Reign of Christ the King based on EENS and the past ecclesiology, Marriages being only among Catholics.Since inter-faith marriages are adultery with the non Catholic being outside the Church.There is only the traditional faith and morals for me.

The SSPX, FSSP, CMRI and the present two popes, the cardinals, bishops, priests, religious and lay Catholics, cannot say the same.

Since with BOD, BOB and I.I being non speculative and non hypothetical, and instead being objective and personally known non Catholics saved outside the Church they have rejected EENS. They have also changed the understanding of the Nicene Creed, rejected the Athanasius Creed, interpreted Vatican Council II and the Catechisms  as a rupture with EENS, created a New Theology, New Ecumenism, New Ecclesiology, New Evangelisation and New Canon Law based upon visible-for-human beings BOD,BOB and I.I.l So with this doctrinal mess, heresy and theological innovation, based upon an irrationality, they receive the Eucharist at Mass or offer Holy Mass in sacrilege.

Some may admit their fault and others deny it.The deniers would say that for them BOD, BOB and I.I refer to invisible people in 2018. Yet it would - but if they consider BOD, BOB and I.I as being exceptions to EENS and the past ecclesiology, then they imply that BOD, BOB and I.I are not invisible but visible,otherwise how could they be exceptions.They imply this when they reject Feeneyite EENS or EENS interpreted like the Magisterium and missionaries of the 16th century.They do not want to say that they are Feeneyites.

They also refuse to say that Vatican Council II does not contradict the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS. So they imply that hypothetical cases are objective exceptions to EENS.

The traditionalists and liberals have all accepted the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which assumes personally unknown cases of BOD, BOB and I.I are known exceptions to the traditional Feeneyite interpretation of EENS. Upon this error, the New Theology is based. So Catholics at large cannot say that BOD, BOB and I.I refer to invisible people.Practically, defacto they are objective examples of outside the Church for most people.

For me they are only possibilities known to God and not exceptions to EENS. The liberal theologians in Baltimore and Boston, in pre-Vatican Council II times, made a mistake.They then repeated the error at Vatican Council II( AG 7, LG 14 etc), where BOD, BOB and I.I are superfluous but mentioned.

At Vatican Council II many believed , in principle, that hypothetical cases (BOD,BOB, I.I and LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, GS 22 etc) were relevant to EENS and the past ecclesiology, as exceptions.So this part of Vatican Council II is not the Magisterial and the work of the Holy Spirit but human error.

So to reject these Church teachings and change the meaning of the Creed is a mortal sin of faith and is an impediment to offering Holy Mass for a priest, according to Canon Law. 

The Nicene Creed and EENS are de fide teachings, I repeat, and to change their meaning is a mortal sin.

So Michael and Peter Dimond are correct in accepting the strict interpretation of EENS and rejecting BOD, BOB and I.I  as exceptions while Catholics at large, including Bill Donohue and Jim Likoudis are wrong.


However Michael and Peter Dimond interpret Vatican Council II with the irrationality and so they are wrong here. They make the same mistake as Catholics at large.-Lionel Andrades




1.
Baptism of desire(BOD),Baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I)