Saturday, April 23, 2016

The sedevacantist Bishop Sanborn uses Cushingism to interpret Vatican Council II and seems unaware of the Feeneyite choice

Bishop Donald Sanborn:

In the late 1940’s, a certain Fr. Leonard Feeney, S.J., a priest functioning in the Archdiocese of Boston, published articles and books declaring that the Catholic Church never taught the doctrine of baptism of blood and baptism of desire.


This is an interpretation.

I could say that he taught that the baptism of desire and blood were not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) .He was correct. Common sense tells us that there cannot be a known case, of someone saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. There could not be any known exception to the dogma.He was affirming EENS according to the 16th century missionaries.
Reacting to the nascent ecumenism and liberalism of Cardinal Cushing, he held that unless someone were baptized with the baptism of water, he could not be saved.
Yes.This was also the teaching of the dogma EENS in the 16th century.Cushing and the Holy Office in 1949 instead were saying there were exceptions, there were known exceptions of the baptism of desire, blood and invincible ignorance.These hypothetical cases were assumed to be known exceptions and this was accepted by the magisterium.
Now Pope Benedict openly affirms Cushingism when he says the dogma EENS has developed and is no more like in the 16th century.
 He and his followers also said that the Church’s doctrine, that outside the
Church there is no salvation, means that those who do not externally belong to the Catholic Church are necessarily going to hell.
Yes. In the 16th century they taught that every one needs 'faith and baptism' for salvation. There were no known exceptions.Even Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) says the same thing.
The Catholic Church never said or taught the doctrines of Fr. Feeney.
For centuries before the Council of Trent this was the official teaching of the Catholic Church.After Trent theologians, in the USA, began to interpret the baptism of desire etc as referring to known cases instead of hypothetical cases.The Baltimore Catechism suggested that the baptism of desire was visible, known and repeatable like the baptism of water, and so placed it in the section on Baptism. The Catechism of St. Pius X did the same.So the theologians in Boston in 1949 used this error as a precedent to create a new doctrine.The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 suggested that the baptism of desire etc were exceptions to the dogma EENS.It was as if they knew of some one saved outside the Church or someone in Baltimore had this special gift from God to see people in Heaven saved us such.
It was upon this irrationality of knowing exceptions to the dogma EENS, that they created a new theology.
The Catholic Church has universally taught and teaches that there is a baptism of blood and a baptism of desire, and that those who are invincibly ignorant of the truth of the Catholic Faith are not guilty of the personal sin of infidelity in their failure to embrace the Catholic Faith.
Fine, theoretically.
However we cannot personally know these cases.We cannot physically see them. They are hypothetical cases.
For the U.S liberal theologians, these are not just hypothetical cases but they refer to known persons saved as such.They mixed up what is invisible as being visible, what is hypothetical and known only to God as being practically known in real life, also for us human beings.
Fr. Feeney’s error was condemned by the Holy Office in 1949, under the reign of Pius XII.
Yes the Holy Office in a break with rationality assumed hypothetical cases were relevant or even exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church for salvation.
Fr. Feeney did not recant, but was excommunicated.
He did not recant even when the excommunication was lifted.Why should he have recanted ? He personally did not know of any any exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS and neither do we know of any such exception even today.
 He founded a community where his followers gathered around him, and his error was confined mostly to the eastern section of the State of Massachusetts. They are commonly referred to as “Feeneyites.”
He was not saying any thing new. He was repeating the teaching of the Council of Florence 1441 which does not mention any exceptions. This dogma was defined by three Church Councils and none of them assumed that there were people in Heaven saved without the baptism of water, who were explicit exceptions on earth to all needing to be formal members of the Catholic Church to avoid Hell.
In the past few years, however, many traditional Catholics have espoused this condemned error as if it were a Catholic doctrine. They falsely perceive the doctrine of baptism of desire and baptism of blood as a dilution of the Church’s true doctrine in preparation for the era of ecumenism.
There are traditional Catholics who simply affirm the dogma EENS as it was taught before the Council of Trent.There are no known exceptions. This is something obvious.There are no known cases of the baptism of desire etc in our reality.So the baptism of desire etc were never exceptions to the dogma EENS.
It should be noted that there are hardly any traditional priests who adhere to the doctrine of Fr. Feeney. It is a layman’s error, and it arises out of an ignorance of the Church’s true doctrine.-Bishop Donald Sanborn,
The Vatican supports Cushingism and so does the political Left.Cushingism is an irrational theology and is a break with pre Council of Trent Tradition.Cushingism is used today to interpret Vatican Council II as a break with the centuries old interpretation of the dogma EENS. If Feeneyism ( there are no known exception ) is used to interpret Vatican Council II , the Council is traditional. It is in harmony with the 16th century missionaries' interpretation of the dogma EENS.
The sedevacantist Bishop Sanborn uses Cushingism to interpret Vatican Council II and seems unaware of the Feeneyite choice.
Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance) for him refers to explicit cases, objectively seen in 2016.For me, a Feeneyite, LG 16 refers to an invisible case.So our perspective on Vatican Council II is different.
-Lionel Andrades

Why is Sanborn and Cekada using the Rahner-Ratzinger new theology?

Sedevacantist Most Holy Trinity Seminary Fl. since Oct. 10, 2015 does not clarify if in Vatican Council II (LG 16, LG 8) refers to persons visible or invisible.

You can interpret Vatican Council II without the new theology. Try it and see
The Baptism of Desire refers to invisible cases. This is common sense. If a pope or saint says otherwise it would be wrong.

Another baptism of desire list in which it is assumed that the deceased are visible to us
Sedevacantists do not realize that the baptism of desire will always be invisible for us. This is not a theory of mine. It is a fact of life.





No comments: