On the website of the CMRI, of Bishop Pivarunas there is a long list of references to the baptism of desire as mentioned by the saints. But those saints do not interpret the baptism of desire with the false premise. It is the CMRI which uses the false premise to interpret the baptism of desire.

Sedevacantist Bishop Sanborn and Bishop Pivarunas  all these years used Fr. Leonard Feeney as a scapegoat . Now they know that Vatican Council II interpreted without the false premise  supports traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).They still are not interpreting Vatican Council II without the false premise.

On the website of the CMRI, of Bishop Pivarunas there is a long list of references to the baptism of desire as mentioned by the saints. But those saints do not interpret the baptism of desire with the false premise.

It is the CMRI which uses the false premise to interpret the baptism of desire. 

I read the same text and the baptism of desire is not an exception to Feeneyite EENS.

 The sedevacantist Most Holy Family Monastery(MHFM) supported the priest Leonard Feeney all these years however they interpreted Vatican Council II with a false premise. They were Lefebvrist traditionalists on Vatican Council II and not Feeneyite traditionalists.

A few years have passed and they still do not issue a correction.They were wrong all these years on Vatican Council II.It is the same with other traditionalists who went into sedevacantism because of Vatican Council II.-Lionel Andrades