The Most Holy Family Monastery cannot change from visible to invisible BOD. Brother Peter Dimond repeats his mistake

Brother Peter Dimond has another report on the baptism of desire etc 1 without mentioning that there are no physically visible baptism of desire(BOD),baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) cases in our reality over the last 100 years.Why discuss BOD with respect to extra ecclesiam nulla salus when there are no BOD cases today ? How can you make distinctions and classifications of BOD cases when there are no such people in our human reality ?

Similarly there are only hypothetical cases of LG 8, LG 14, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22  etc in Vatican Council II. So Vatican Council II does not contradict Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441 on extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
I repeat Vatican Council II does not contradict Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441 on extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
I repeat Vatican Council II does not contradict Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441 on extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
I repeat Vatican Council II does not contradict Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441 on extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).

Peter Dimond does not make the visible-invisible, explicit-implicit distinction when he refers to BOD.

He simply assumes BOD is explicit and so is an alleged exception to EENS .Then he rejects BOD and Vatican Council II(Cushingite).If it was not objective and visible he would not have to reject BOD.

The popes from Paul VI affirmed Cushingite Vatican Council II. They are in schism with the popes before Pius XII.Since they contradict the popes on EENS and BOD, BOB and I.I. 

BOD,BOB and I.I were always invisible for the popes before Pius XII.

So they never were objective exceptions or relevant to EENS.It was the popes from Paul VI who made the mistake.

Now if Peter Dimond understood that BOD, BOB and I.I are always hypothetical  only  the popes from Paul VI would still be schismatic.They would be in a rupture with the popes before Pius XII who affirmed Feeneyite EENS and Feeneyite BOD, BOB and I.I. i.e EENS in which there are no visible exceptions of BOD, BOB and I.I. to EENS.

Peter Dimond has a choice. He can affirm EENS( Feeneyite) and Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite). He does not have to reject Vatican Council II which would be Feeneyite and not Cushingite.

I affirm EENS ( Feeneyite) like Peter and Michael Dimond, but I also reject Vatican Council II ( Cushingite) and  affirm Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite). The popes from Paul VI  to Francis are also schismatics for me but the present two popes can correct the error.They can affirm EENS and Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) like me.

What is the point in producing another report on BOD etc, when in Peter and Michael Dimond's mind they picture BOD as being visible  and not hypothetical. Since it refers to a known person saved outside the Church, for them, it is an exception to EENS, and they know that EENS cannot have exceptions. So they reject BOD.If it was not visible and objective for them they would not have to reject BOD.The popes before Pius XII did not have to reject BOD. It simply was irrelevant to EENS for them.

The Most Holy Family Monastery are unable to switch from visible to invisible BOD.

This is the mistake Peter Dimond repeat.

-Lionel Andrades

1

Pope Benedict XII's Dogmatic Definition On Heaven And Baptism

Bro. Peter Dimond  https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/pope-benedict-xii-baptism-heaven/#.XV0NO-Uzbcc