Wednesday, September 9, 2015

Fr.Paul Kramer and Fr.Anthony Cekada cannot know of any physical exception to EENS: There are no explicit cases of BOD and BOB

Immagine correlata
Section VII 
General Conclusion 
All Catholics are obliged to adhere to the common teaching on baptism of blood and baptism of desire. According to the norms outlined above, the Feeneyite position represents either theological error, error in Catholic doctrine or heresy. Those Catholics who adhere to the Feeneyite position on baptism of desire and baptism of blood commit a mortal sin against the faith.-Fr.Anthony Cekada on Feeneyism.

Is the baptism of desire and baptism of blood physically visible to us human beings in 2015 ? If there is no such case known or seen then how can BOD and BOB be relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS)?.
If physicially we cannot see or meet any one saved with BOD and BOB, with or without the baptism of water, how can these cases be exceptions to all needing to enter the Church with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.
We do not know of any one saved with BOD or BOB, we do not know a single case on earth and yet  the sedevacantists have a theology which says these cases are exceptions to EENS
When I ask Fr. Anthony Cekada and Fr.Paul Kramer, sedevacantists if Lumen Gentium 16 (LG 16) is an exception to EENS, does it refer to an explicit case ìn 2015, they will not answer.
Since they assumed that BOD and BOB were explicit for us and also assumed that LG 16 was explicit for us.So they interpreted LG 16 as an exception to EENS.Hence they concluded that Vatican Council II is  a break with EENS.
But if BOD and BOB are implicit for us; invisible for us and visible only to God then they are not exceptions to the Feeneyite  version of EENS.
If LG 16 refers to invisible cases, hypothetical for us , then LG 16 does not contradict EENS. Then there is nothing in Vatican Council II which contradicts EENS. Vatican Council II is traditional. It is in agreement with the Syllabus of Errors.

Immagine correlata

Leonard Feeney SJ did not invent the heresy which denies Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood. It was alredy known to be a heresy propagated long before Feeney began to profess this heresy. 


The denial of BOD was aleady known to be a heresy well before Fr. Feeney fell for this old heresy. In my reply to a Feeneyite along with its links to informative articles, you will find all you need in order to understand that BOD & BOB are defined doctrines of the universal & ordinary magisterium that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith. 
Fr.Paul Kramer are you referring to BOD and BOB which is explicit or implcit, visible or invisible, concrete or abstract?
For me BOD and BOB are always implicit, invisible and abstract.

Dear Feeneyite, 

I have examined your entire exposition attempting to critique my position on Baptism of Desire. It is riddled with fallacious assumptions; such as your false attribution to me of an error on the point of necessity of precept vs. necessity of means.
When BOD and BOB are invisible for us, any talk of necessity and precept is hypothetical. Since you do not know of any such case.This was the mistake made in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston.

 Another gross error you make is to equate the doctrine of Baptism of Desire, which pertains to the universal magisterium of the Church, with mere opinions that the Church has tolerated but never has taught or approved. 

Before the doctrine of BOD would have been explicitly and universally set forth by the ordinary magisterium, it would have been permissible to hold a contrary opinion; but that is now and for many centuries no longer the case. BOD as well as BOB (explicitly professed in the Roman Martyrology) have been definitively set forth by the universal & ordinary magisterium, and are therefore infallible and must be believed with divine and Catholic faith.
So I can believe in BOD and BOB as being possibilities known to God.I do not have to link them to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). Since they are invisible and  known only to God they are irrelevant to the dogma. I do not make the link between the two.
So I affirm BOD and BOB as being implicit and a possibility and I also affirm the Feeneyite version of EENS which excludes explicit for us BOD and BOB. This does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction.
So it cannot be said that I am denying BOD and BOB since they can only be accepted as being implicit and not explicit. There is no choice.

 It has become universally defined by the magisterium in no small part, first; because it had been taught by St. Thomas Aquinas and other medieval Doctors, 
True and I accept BOD and BOB. St. Thomas Aquinas did not state that these cases were visible for us and so were exceptions to EENS.He did not make the connection. This has to be inferred.I choose not to infer it.Since it would be irrational to infer that an invisible case is a visible exception to all needing to formally convert into the Catholic Church in the present times.

secondly; because the application of the dogma of Trent to this point by St. Alphonsus has been formally approved by Gregory XVI and by Pius IX, and has been explicitly taught by Pope Pius IX and Pope Pius X in their ordinary magisterium.
Yes I accept BOD and BOB in the ordinary magisterium and for me these cases are hypothetical. They would also be followed by the baptism of water, since this is the dogmatic teaching.

 Furthermore, the 1917 Code of Canon Law prescribed as a universal statute that deceased Catechumens are to be given a Catholic burial and "are to be counted among the bapitzed" (can. 1239).
 St. Pius X teaches that those who have been sanctified by baptism of desire are in the Church not as incorporated members, but in so far as they belong to "the soul of the Church". The basis for this teaching of St. Pius X is the doctrine of St. Robert Bellarmine who succinctly explains in what manner such catechumens are to be considered to belong to the soul of the Church. This distinction was already taught by St. Augustine. 
For me this is a hypothetical case. If such a case existed it would be known only to God.Even if there is some such case 'out there' which would be known to someone .It is a possibility.In general we would not know about this case.So it would not be relevant or an exception to the dogma.
However these cases are unknown to us , for example in Rome in 2015. So every one in Rome in 2015 needs Catholic Faith and the baptism of water to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.There are no baptism of desire exceptions.

Leonard Feeney SJ was not the originator of this heresy.
Fr.Leonard Feeney was saying there are no explict cases of BOD and BOB and so, these cases are not exceptions to the dogma. He was saying there is no salvation outside the Church. BOD and BOB cases do not refer to salvation outside the Church. Since they are unknown cases in our reality. They are zero cases for us.They were zero cases for the Archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Richard Cushing. They were zero cases for Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani who issued the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. So they could not be cases of salvation outside the Church. Since they did not and could not know of any case saved outside the Church i.e without faith and baptism.
So Fr.Leonard Feeney could accept traditional EENS along with invisible for us, hypothetical cases of BOD and BOB.

 The eminent late Nineteenth Century early 20th Century theologian, Francisco Marin-Sola OP, mentions that there have already been some heretics teaching this doctrine: “Certain heretics have affirmed that no adult can be saved without receiving baptism itself before he dies, however much he would burn with desire for it, and that it would do him no good unless he were washed with water." 
The dogma says all need the baptism of water for salvation.Vatican Council II(AG 7, LG 14) says all need faith and baptism for salvation. The Athanasius Creed says outside the Church there is no salvation. The Nicene Creed  says there is one baptism for the forgiveness of sin and in 2015 I do not know any exception of someone being saved with BOD and BOB and without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.So where is the adult who is an exception, for you? Can you name him? Where does he live?
If you do not know of such a case, physically it is unknown to you, then why mention it?

The precise quotations from magisterial sources are presented in the two articles indicated below which more than sufficiently demonstrate beyond all shadow of doubt that Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood are infallible definitions of the Church which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, under penalty of heresy and eternal damnation. 
The articles I am sure will not quote any saint or pope saying that the Baptism of Desire and the Baptism of Blood are visible and known in the present times. Neither will they say that these invisible for us cases are explicit exceptions to EENS. This could be your inference but the  text will not say it.Fr. Paul Kramer 

-Lionel Andrades

No comments: