Wednesday, July 8, 2015

Fr.Anthony Cekada should have apologised to the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney

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, sedavacantist

the Feeneyite position represents either theological error, error in Catholic doctrine or heresy. -Fr.Anthony Cekada

1.Note: The Church Fathers and the Medieval Fathers  did not make a link between baptism of desire ( BOD), baptism of blood (BOB) and extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).Fr.Anthony Cekada has made this link.
It was liberal theologians who made the connection.It was done best by Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston.Fr.Cekada has done the same.

2.No magisterial document before 1949 connects BOD, BOB  with EENS.It was separated.
Fr.Cekada has quoted many people affirming BOD. He then assumes that these cases are known to them. He goes further and assumes that these cases since they are known are explicit exceptions to the dogma. So he concludes that BOD is an exception to the dogma and so Fr.Leonard Feeney was wrong.
Whenever he says BOD is an exception to the dogma or part of the dogma he means people in Heaven are visible on earth to be an exception.
 For him the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney in the USA are in mortal sins for not suggesting that the BOD is an exception to the dogma.While he himself does not know of any BOD case in the present times.

3.No magisterial document before 1949 says BOD,BOB cases are explicit for us in daily life.No church document says these cases are objective for us .We cannot judge who will be saved with BOD or BOB, with or without the baptism of water (BOW).
Whenever a magisterial document mentions BOD Fr.Anthony Cekada immediately assumes it is also a reference to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Then there is that attitude, of "See here is the proof. The Feeneyites are wrong".
He does not realize that he is using Marchetti's false premise and inference.

4.In our personal experience we do not know anyone saved outside the Church i.e without 'faith and baptism'. We do not know any one who contradicts the dogma EENS which says all need to be formal members of the Church, all need the baptism of water in the Catholic Church for salvation.
Neither can Fr.Cekada name any one in 2015 who has been saved without Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.

All this was pointed out to him years ago. He is aware of the error. He should have apologised to the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney a long time back.-Lionel Andrades

How did the new ecclesiology develop?

Bishop Donald Sanborn interprets Vatican Council II with Marchetti's error

The New Ecclesiology: An Overview
Most Rev. Donald J. Sanborn
Vatican II’s teaching about the nature of the Church, about who belongs to it, and about salvation outside of it, is explicitly heretical.
It is heretical only if Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani's irrational premise and inference is used in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
I. A Neglected Topic
Much ado has been made, in the efforts of traditionalists to combat Vatican II, about the Mass, ecumenism, and religious liberty. It is true that in these areas, Vatican II and its effects have departed from the essence of the Catholic Faith. There is, however, a topic which receives little attention, although one in which bears glaring and bold heresy. It is the new ecclesiology.
Ecclesiology is the doctrine concerning the nature of the Church. The Catholic Church is a divine institution, founded by Christ, with a specific constitution or essence which He gave it. Depart from this constitution or essence, and you have a false church. An organization which claims to be a christian church must prove that its constitution or essence is the same which Christ intended for His Church. It must have essentially the same doctrine, worship, and disciplines as the Church which Christ intended, and must also have the same essential characteristics, such as a hierarchy which is traceable back to the Apostles.
 Yes it must be apostolic. Marchetti's error does not come from the Apostles.Over time Catholics kept referring to the baptism of desire(BOD). It was a possibility. Something accepted hypothetically. Then liberal theologians began to assume that BOD was not hypothetical but real. This happened when they linked BOD with extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).This connection between EENS and BOD does not come from the time of the Apostles.It really came into the Church in 1949.
What I have just described has been the Church’s classical method of proving that she is the true Church of Christ. It is known as the science of Apologetics.
Vatican II received an analytical critique only gradually. As Vatican II happened, nearly all Catholics gave to it the benefit of the doubt, but at the same time sensed, unmistakably, that there was something deeply, deeply wrong in the Church during and after Vatican II. By analogy, you tend to believe your doctor when he tells you that you will not have any bad side effects from a new medication. But when the severe side effects come, the reality which you experience overcomes whatever faith you had in your doctor’s word. So when the hierarchy which engendered Vatican II told us that nothing essential changed, we tended to believe it. But as the changes gradually unfolded, and the evidence mounted more and more that Vatican II was a pill of deadly poison, we gradually took a longer look at Vatican II and its causes. In fact, this work is far from done. Much more needs to be written about Vatican II, particularly about those who organized it and directed its content and outcome.
There can be two interpretations of Vatican Council.Onevis rational and the other irrational. The liberals and the sedevacantist Bishop Donald Sanborn use  the same irrational one.They link BOD with EENS. So they infer that BOD cases are known in the present times to be exceptiont to EENS i.e there are some people today who do not need to be formal members of the Church. This is his theology based on BOD being known in the present times.
Because the Mass is the “face” of the Catholic Faith, the contrast of the traditional Mass with the new has received the most attention over the years. In fact, there are many who desire to see only the retention of the traditional Mass as the solution to the Church’s problems. They see no problem with Vatican II, or are willing to accept it in a traditional interpretation, in order to save it. The Mass, they say, is the unique problem and therefore the unique solution.
But what gave us the New Mass is Vatican II and the heretical underlying theology of the council.
'Underlying theology of the council' ! The theology comes from 1949. However we can still interpret Vatican Council II without the liberal theology, the dead- man- walking -and- visible theology. There is no fixed underlying theology of the Council.

 Ecumenism is the spirit of Vatican II, which is the abandonment of the very notion of dogma, the very notion of absolute, unchanging revealed truths. Ecumenism detests the rigid dogmas of the pre-Vatican II Church. Instead, these dogmas must have their lines blurred, and become negotiable, at least in their meaning and import, with the contradicting doctrines of false religions.
With Marchetti's error traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus is rejected. So there is no more an ecumenism of return.UR 3 is a break with EENS since it is inferred to be visible and not invisible for us.
If this irrational premise (dead-saved in Heaven are visible on earth)  and inference (they are present day known exceptions to EENS)  is not made, UR 3 does not contradict EENS. Vatican Council II is Feeneyite on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
But we can see later in the references to Ecumenism by Bishop Sanborn, UR 3 does contradict EENS for him.
It is ecumenism that is at the root of all the problems after Vatican II. Ecumenism could not tolerate a Church that said that it alone was the one true Church of Christ, and that outside of it there is no salvation.
Outside the Church there is no salvation, the dogma, was really rejected in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 , in the second part of the Letter. There was  a new ecclesiology.Here are the mistakes which make up the new ecclesiology. Baptism of Desire (BOD) was considered explicit in the present times,  historical references to BOD were linked to EENS,then  it was assumed that magisterium documents referred to a BOD which was known and visible in the present times.The same mistakes were made with hypothetical cases in invincible ignorance.
 It demanded a new ecclesiology, one in which the Church would be seen as a “communion” to which you can partially belong and partially not belong. Salvation could not be restricted to the Catholic Church; you cannot do ecumenism with those whose religions are leading them to hell. Rather all religions lead to God some more directly, some less directly. All religions have value.
Bishop Sanborn makes Marchetti's error here and this is his view of Vatican Council II interpreted with the dead-saved- and- visible irrationality.
Since the papacy is the greatest obstacle to ecumenism, as Montini (Paul VI) himself said, it was clear that it, too, had to go. As a result, collegiality was taught by Vatican II, the doctrine that the supreme authority of the Church is vested in the college or body of bishops.
Likewise in the moral sphere, ecumenism could not tolerate a Church which insisted that civil society recognize it as the one true Church of Christ, to the exclusion of others. Ecumenism could not tolerate that those who profess false religions be told by the state that they had no right to profess or practice these false religions, since to do so would be an insult to God. As a result, the council taught the doctrine of religious liberty.
We say, therefore, that there are four major heresies in Vatican II: (1) ecumenism itself, the basis of the rest of them; (2) the new ecclesiology; (3) collegiality; (4) religious liberty.
There is one basic error and all these errors emerge from it. The basis error is Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani's rejection of traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus with four mistakes.1  It can be checked, identified and avoided.
Without this error the same Vatican Council II emerges traditional and in harmony with the 'rigorist interpretation' of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
The New Mass is but a by-product of ecumenism in the domain of liturgy. There would be no New Mass if the ecumenism had not been triumphant in the minds of the Vatican II clergy.
The New Mass can be offered by a priest affirming the old ecclesiology according to Vatican Council II.Ecclesiology is independent of liturgy.

Besides the heresy of ecumenism itself — I think apostasy is a better term — it is religious liberty which has occupied the attention of most, as the point in which Vatican II makes its departure from tradition.
Prof. Roberto de Mattei still has to affirm the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in agreement with Vatican Council II (AG 7, NA 4) -it is related to Religious Liberty
Pope omits doctrine which is the basis for religious liberty

 It is true that it does make a departure, and it does so with striking contradiction to the teachings of recent popes on this issue.
The implication is, however, that there is nothing else wrong with Vatican II, except ecumenism and religious liberty. There are two other very important heresies, heresies which open the door to ecumenical abominations: the new ecclesiology and collegiality.
Here we concern ourselves only with the new ecclesiology.
II. The Traditional Ecclesiology
There is but one Church of Christ, and it is the Roman Catholic Church. It is the one true Church outside of which there is no salvation.
This is also the message of Vatican Council II ( Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14)

Vatican Council II says all need to convert into the Church and Catholics are the new people of God, the Chosen People
Vatican Council says we really cannot have a reasonable hope that all men are saved



They are members of the Roman Catholic Church who are validly baptized, and who have not been alienated from it by (a) the sin of heresy, (2) the sin of schism, (3) the censure of excommunication. 
Denying or changing the dogma EENS according to the pre-1949 magisterium is heresy.
Assuming the Nicene Creed's 'I believe in one baptism ( baptism of water) for the forgiveness of sins' refers to more that one baptism ( desire, blood, invincible ignorance(LG 16), imperfect communion with the Church (UR3), seeds of the Word(AG 11) etc, all without the baptism of water, is heresy. 

Those who are validly baptized in non-Catholic sects are presumed by Church law to participate in and assent to the sins of heresy and/or schism of their respective sects. Privately, however, they may be not guilty of these sins, owing to invincible ignorance of the true Faith, in which case they may belong to the Catholic Church by desire, provided they fulfill other conditions. In these cases, their adherence to the Roman Catholic Church by desire is sufficient for salvation.
We do not know who they are in personal cases. We cannot know who they are. So they are not exceptions to the dogma EENS in the present times.

The Roman Catholic Church is absolutely and exclusively identified with the Mystical Body of Christ. They are one and the same thing. There is no distinction to make. The Mystical Body isthe Roman Catholic Church considered as a comparison to Christ’s physical body, where He is the Head and we the members.
Absolute requirements for belonging to the Roman Catholic Church and the Mystical Body of Christ are (1) that one profess all the truths which are taught by the Church as pertaining to faith, and (2) that one be submitted to the Roman Pontiff as the visible head of the Church. If either of these conditions is failing, one cannot be a member of the Roman Catholic Church.
The contemporary magisterium is presently teaching that BOD and BOB are exceptions to EENS. This is non traditional, non apostolic and a break with the pre-1949 magisterium of the Catholic Church.
Because the Roman Catholic Church is the unique Church of Christ, it is the unique means of salvation. No other church has the means to bring people to heaven. While it is true that they may have certain elements of the truth, both natural and supernatural, and in some cases valid sacraments, these elements are insufficient to lead people to heaven.
We cannot identify any one in the present times saved with these 'elements of sanctification and truth'(LG 8). So they are not exceptions to the dogma EENS.

 For they are mixed with poisonous false doctrines which, if they are believed with pride and stubbornness, will necessarily lead to hell. All of the “elements of truth” in the world a true religion do not make, nor a means of salvation. By analogy, to have many elements of an automobile does not make a working vehicle which will bring you to your destination. An aircraft which has only certain“elements” of what an aircraft should have will necessarily crash and burn at the end of the runway, together with all of the people in it. The only way in which people who adhere to these false religions can avoid the inevitable result of being on a ship which is going to the bottom, is if they adhere to the true Faith by desire, at least implicit, and adhere to the false religion through no fault of their own. But they must fulfill many other conditions in order to achieve the justification of their souls and persevere in grace.
III. The New Ecclesiology
In contrast to this simple and logical doctrine concerning the nature of the Catholic Church, and the obligation to belong to it, the Modernists have concocted a new doctrine, a novelty, a heresy.
The new ecclesiology is, as I have said, a product of ecumenism. 
It is a product of Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani's mistake. The new ecumenism also comes from the same source.
If Bishop Donald Sanborn would avoid the Marchetti premise and inference he could easily re-interpret Vatican Council II and avoid confusion on the points which follow in his article.-Lionel Andrades

How did the new ecclesiology develop?