Sedevacantists will still not answer if Lumen Gentium 16 refers to physically visible or invisible people in 2017 :LG 16 invisible indicates that they were wrong on Vatican Council II all these years

A German Catholic traditionalist Sanctius Bonifactius possibly a sedevacantist has posted an article on the Baptism of Desire (BOD) assuming that the BOD refers to visible and known people saved outside the Church.He then assumes that these 'known' cases  are exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( EENS). 

When it is pointed out to him that there are no known cases of the  BOD in our reality and so they  never ever were an exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS,he refuses to accept it.Emotionally he cannot handle it.

I tell him  via  the Internet that we both do not know of any baptism of desire case in 2017.So how can someone who does not exist be an exception to all needing to be formal members of the Church for salvation?

He refuses to admit this. BOD is not an exception to the dogma EENS as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century.

Then I asked him how would he interpret Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance), does it refer to a visible or invisible person in our reality. He will not answer.He just refuses to answer such a simple question.

It was the same with the sedevacantist Eric Gajewski( Trad Cat Knight). I asked him if LG 16 refers to a visible or invisible case.LG 16 can be interpreted in two ways. With two different premises you get two different conclusions.

He refused to answer the question.

Why?

Can we see people saved in Heaven with the baptism of desire' I ask them. They will not answer. 

It is as if their whole house will come down.It is as if I am saying something objectionable for them.

They critiize me for asking this question and suggest that this is a personal view of mine. I have quoted so many responsible people, good Catholics who say that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance refers to invisible cases. This is something obvious. This is common sense.It is obvious we cannot see people saved in Heaven in invincible ignorance of the Gospel through no fault of their own.We cannot see people in Heaven saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.This is not a personal theory of mine.

The German traditionalists will not even post my comments along with his articles on Gloria TV on this subject.

It is now a few years since  the sedevacantist communities of Bishops Pirvanus and Sanborn will not answer if BOD refers to physically visible cases or physically invisible cases in 2017.There will be two intepretations  of Vatican Council II, if LG 16, LG 8, UR 3,NA 2 etc refers to either concrete or
theoretical cases.They both had chosen the wrong premise.

Look at their websites. It is full of reports on Vatican Council II suggesting that invisible cases are really visible and they exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church and they are a rupture with Tradition in particular the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church. Their entire understanding of Vatican Council II is based on LG 16 being visible.It is all there on their websites. 

So how can they make a turn around now. They simply ignore me. They will not discuss the subject.Bonifactius and Gajiewski act as if this is a personal opinion or theory of mine.

 Sanctius Bonifatius and Eric Gajiewski know in their heart what is the honest and rational conclusion.They do not want to face it as sedevacantists and traditionalists.They have been running down Vatican Council II and the Novus Ordo Mass and now it is being discovered that they were using a false theology to interpret the Council all these years.It also means there is no rationale any more to justify sedevacantism based on Vatican Council II.

 Vatican Council II with invisible-for-us LG 16 is traditional and does  not contradict the dogma EENS according to the missionaries of the 16th century.So the Council is not a  break with Tradition.It never was.
They can no more justify their  sedevacantism and neither can  the Society of St. Pius X(SSPX) reject the Council based on LG 16 being visible.

There are articles on line in which Bishop Bernard Fellay and Fr.Pier Paolo Petrucci, the Superior of the SSPX in Italy have interpreted Vatican Council II with UR 3, LG 16 etc referring to visible cases. So they concluded that the Council was a rupture with Tradition.They were misled by the Letter  of the Holy Office 1949 which made this objective mistake.

So Gajiewski and  Bonifactius will not answer if LG 16 refers to a visible or invisible case since  all along they assumed LG 16 referred to a visible case and then postulated that it was a known case of salvation outside the Church.Since Vatican Council II for them was saying that there was salvation outside the Church it was a clash with the dogma EENS.Since EENS was rejected the old ecclesiology of the Church was also rejected. So then the Syllabus of Errors was rejected on ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue and conversion. It all began with visible for us LG 16.
The present magisterium also has been interpreting LG 16  as referring to visible cases. So this confirmed it for the sedevacantists that Vatican Council II was a rupture with Tradition. None of them have appealed to the two popes to interpret LG 16  etc as an invisible case and then there would be no visible exceptions mentioned in the Council to the dogma EENS.

Similarly no one in March 2016 asked Pope Benedict to interpret Vatican Council II with LG 16 being invisible and then the Council will not be ' a development' of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century.

The sedevacantists are so atttached to their interpretation of  the Council with LG 16 being visible that they will not respond to a simple question which would not be difficult for even a school boy.

Trad Cat Kinght would not only not answer these simple questions he would not allow me to comment on his blog.Bonifactius is deleting posts.Since  he does not want to have a discussion  in public. To respond to his posts I have to write reports like this one.-Lionel Andrades