Peter Dimond at the Most Holy Family Monastery (MHFM) does not make the distinction between Vatican Council II rational and irrational. Vatican Council II irrational, of course has exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). So he rejects Vatican Council II ( irrational). Like him I too affirm the dogma EENS and reject Vatican Council II, irrational -but I also affirm Vatican Council II, rational, unlike him.

Peter Dimond at the Most Holy Family Monastery (MHFM) does not make the distinction between Vatican Council II rational and irrational. Vatican Council II irrational, of course has exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). So he rejects Vatican Council II ( irrational). Like him I too affirm the dogma EENS and reject Vatican Council II, irrational -but I also affirm Vatican Council II, rational, unlike him.

Any pope who interprets Vatican Council II irrationally he calls a heretic.

I accept Vatican Council II only interpreted rationally. So the Council is not a rupture with the dogma EENS according to the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and the Council of Florence (1442).Peter Dimond accepts these two Councils and interprets them like me.

Since I interpret Vatican Council II, rationally, this is a new discovery and I can look at the Council differently. I see Peter Dimond interpreting the Council irrationally with the popes and the rest of the mainline Church. He calls the rest of the Church the Vatican Council II sect.He believes he is in the only one, true Church.

He says those who accept the popes who have accepted Vatican Council II (interpreted irrationally) are not Catholic. So he is a sedevacantist.

But I accept the popes and do not condemn them or Peter Dimond. I interpret the Council rationally and Peter and Michael Dimond have nothing to say on this issue.I do not say that either of the two of them are not Catholic.

Since hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire (BOD), baptism of blood (BOB) and invincible ignorance (I.I) do not contradict the strict interpretation of EENS for me, I can affirm BOD, BOB and I.I and EENS. I do not have to choose.

For the popes and the Dimonds, since BOD, BOB and I.I refer to objective cases, visible people saved outside the Church-  they have to choose. It is BOD, BOB and I.I or EENS according to the Church Councils.

It is the same with Vatican Council II and EENS.Since the Council is not a rupture with EENS for me, I can affirm Vatican Council II, rational and also EENS, interpreted rationally i.e. with BOD, BOB and I.I being only hypothetical cases and so not objective exceptions for traditional EENS.

So the bottom line is that there are two interpretations of Vatican Council II. One is rational and the other is irrational.Peter and Michael Dimond use the irrational option and I choose the rational option.

They will not discuss this subject. Since if I am correct they will be interpreting Vatican Council II heretically. It is the same with the Creeds.

They can correct their public mistake. In future they can interpret, rationally, LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2 and GS 22 etc, in Vatican Council II. It means they no more confuse these invisible cases as being visible. - Lionel Andrades

https://vaticancatholic.com/