'You can fool all of the people most of the time but not all of them all the time'

It was one big con game.

The Baltimore Catechism tells Catholics to consider being saved in martyrdom or with implicit desire as a baptism. So at the turn of the century(1900) Catholics believed  it was possible to be saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.

The Catechism of Pope Pius X  and other catechisms would suggest there are three baptisms when the Nicene Creed says there is one baptism for the forgiveness of sin,the baptism of water.

By the 1940's Catholic theologians accepted this new concept; this new doctrne . In 1949 the Holy Office (CDF) in a Letter to the Archbishop of Boston made it official.Baptism of Desire(BOD) and Baptism of Blood(BOB) were baptisms which excluded the need of the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. This was a conspiracy.

Catholics were told that the old dogma on extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) , with the old ecclesiology, was no more valid.There were exceptions.There was known salvation outside the Church.So this was magisterial and it was accepted by all.The magisterium cannot be wrong!

The saying goes, 'You can fool all the people most  of the time but you cannot fool all the people all the time'.

Now after some 70- plus years since the Letter  was issued we know there was something not quite right at Boston.Since people saved with BOD, BOB or in invincible ignorance(I.I) are in Heaven.
We do not personally know any case on earth.So how can these cases be known exceptions to all needing to be formal members of the Church for salvation? How can non existent cases in our reality be exceptions to all needing faith and baptism for salvation.

We cannot 'see' the BOD and BOB case .We cannot administer them as we do the baptism of water.We cannot name anyone saved as such ( with BOB/BOD) since it would mean going to Heaven, finding things out and then returning to earth.Did they do this in Baltimore in 1885? Or in Boston in 1949?

So how could they, in Baltimore or Rome, postulate that BOD and BOB were baptisms  like the baptism of water ? How could they know someone saved without the baptism of water? They could not!. 

If all this was done intentionally, it was one grand con operation by some group of persons, wanting to get rid of the dogma EENS.

You  may say that this is all academic , theoretical, theology.Yet it becomes very concrete when we interpret Vatican Council II. If  you follow the Baltimore Catechism and the Holy Office /CDF understanding of BOD and BOB then you reject traditional EENS and change the Nicene Creed.You interpret Vatican Council II as break with EENS and the Syllabus of Errors.

If you do not follow the Baltimore-Pius X-CDF interpretation of BOD and BOB being explicit, then you are back to the Catechism of Trent,the Nicene Creed remains unchanged and we are back to the Feeneyite version of EENS and it  is not contradicted by Vatican Council II. This was the understanding of EENS according to St.Maximillian Kolbe whose feast day is today.

For example, the founder of the Franciscans of the Immaculate, Fr.Stefano Mannelli FFI is still under 'political arrest'.He is under house arrest for ideological reasons.The Manelli philosophy seminary at Boccea, Rome is still closed.Priests of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate are still not allowed to offer the Traditional Latin Mass.This is a concrete issue related to doctrine.This is all because initially the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate were not able to accept the ecclesiology of the Baltimore-Pius X-Holy Office three baptisms,  in which BOD and BOB are explicit. So Vatican Council II (LG 16 etc) was a break with EENS and the Syllabus of Errors for them. This interpretation of Vatican Council II was not accepted by the Francescans.
While for the Vatican Curia Vatican Council II is a break with EENS.

So this is not just a theoretical, academic, theological issue.There are concrete, real and painful manifestations in the Church.  We have a  Catholic community not allowed to offer Holy Mass and their seminary closed and founder placed in seclusion.Lay Catholics are not allowed to attend the Traditional Latin Mass in Rome at the FFI churches.

Similarly during the last pontificate the SSPX was being encouraged to accept Vatican Councl II as a break with the past (EENS) for canonical status.This is another concrete case of a doctrinal error having concrete results.

Yet  Vatican Council II is not a break with the past if you do not use the Baltimore-Pius X-Holy Office premise of BOD and BOB being explicit.It is not a break with the past if you do not infer that these visible  cases (now in Heaven) are known exceptions to EENS.

Can the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate priests say this in public? A sacred cow of the Masons so carefully planted in the Church since 1885 would come down.

Priests who offered the Traditional Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass would be affirming the old ecclesiology.This would be intolerable for the political Left.Ideologically this would not be permitted.

It would mean all the seminaries of the Catholic Church throughout the world could interpret Vatican Council II in agreement with EENS according to the Franciscan Conventuals in the Cities of Mary of St. Maximillian Kolbe.

This could result in more 'house arrests' and closure of seminaries in the Catholic Church.

So for now discerning people are silent. 'You can fool most of the  people most of the time..'

-Lionel Andrades