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.





How easily annulments and dispensations are given and now Amoris Laetitia offers another Church-approved means to strike at the family

Related imageIn the Philippines and Florida the Eucharist will be given to Catholics who have divorced and remarried. It is no more a sacrilege.This will be common all over the world just as it is easy to get an annulment or dispensation.The commonly given annulments and dispensations are also an attack on the family.
Jesus has said that when two are married they should not be separated.However it now seems easy to get a canonical dispensation or annulment.
Related image
Now all this has become official and formal with the announcement of Amoris Laeitia.Just as it was wrongly allowed by a few American bishops to give Communion in the hand and this is the norm now, accepted by the Church, it will become common for the divorced to receive the Eucharist.They will be receiving an official approval like a dispensation or annulment.
Related image
So many annulments and dispensations breaking marriages, approving persons living in sin to receive the Eucharist are given.
Why should annulments and dispensations be given, and why in the way it is being done now?
Often the bishop or priest who makes these exceptions does not believe in some teachings of the Church.Even the contemporary popes do not believe.
Pope Benedict in public has rejected the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the 16th century missionaries. Pope Francis does the same.
They both have approved Amoris Laetitia which says there are exceptions to calling mortal sin  a mortal sin.(301) .They are both saying that we can know of cases when people living in manifest mortal sin will not be going to Hell if they die immediately.
Related image
They both have approved the present system for annulments and dispensations.
They both now also approve the Eucharist being given to Catholic politicians who approve abortion in the USA and those who support same sex marriages in Britain.
Why do Catholics ask for these annulments and dispensations ? Even Catholics who are critical of Amoris Laetitia ?
Related image
David Domet at the blog Vox Cantoris left his first wife and accepted an annulment and then married again.He is allowed to receive the Eucharist.
Louie Verrecchio at the blog AKA Catholic, who is also critical of Amoris Laeitia, got a dispensation to marry and live with a non Catholic. It is not considered adultery by him. He too can receive the Eucharist like the 'irregular cases' in the USA and Philippines.They will all now be 'regular'.
Related image
Christopher Ferrara married a Protestant who is now a Catholic.At that time he too did not affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, as did the 16th century missionaries. For him hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are known exceptions. This is similar to the exceptions to mortal sin : situation ethics, subjectivism, known exceptions to salvation and moral theology.
Possibly he too got an annulment, even though his wife was outside the Church according to the traditional  teachings.These are just a few of them. There could be many more out there.
When Jesus said that marriage must not be broken, why do Catholics ask for a separation, only because it is easily available in the present times?
With the annulment, the sin has been condoned and now the Eucharist is not received sacrilegiously? Like the divorced and remarried who will be given the Eucharist in the Philippines and Florida?
Related image
' is can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace.'(Amoris Laeitia. 301) since they have got an annulment or dispensation ? An official approval ?
What happens to the first wife or husband and the children left behind?
I ask this in general and not with reference to any specific person.
I am not judging or condemning any one but calling attention to how easily annulments and dispensations are given and now Amoris Laetitia offers another Church-approved means to strike at the family.
Related image
May be the divorced and remarried in the future will just have to pay the fees and it will all be done.
Jesus did not create any loop holes for divorce or separation 1.
The Staff Apologist at Catholic Answers says that the Church has no right to nullify a marriage 2.However the loop hole, the exception clause, now is to assume that the marriage was not valid in the first place and then terminate it.( Subjectivism? Situation ethics? How can they really know ? And in so many cases?).It was not a Sacrament in the first place??!!! This is the reasoning to break a marriage officially?
Why are annulments given based on such reasoning?
-Lionel Andrades

Does Jesus leave a loophole for divorce in Matthew 19:9?

Full Question

I believe the Bible when it says he who divorces and marries another commits adultery, as we see in Mark 10:1-12 and Luke 16:18. But isn't Jesus leaving a loophole when he says in Matthew 19:9 "except for unchastity"?


What may appear as a loophole is a consequence of misinterpretation or mistranslation. The King James Version and others translate the passage into English words that appear to say fornication, unchastity, or adultery are exceptions that allow a divorce.
The constant teaching of the Church has been that a valid sacramental marriage can not be broken, even if one party sins. As Matthew 19:6 says, "Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate." Biblical scholars, such as J. Bonsirven, have pointed out that the Greek word that is pivotal here is "porneia," which means unlawful sexual intercourse. The Gospel does not use the Greek word "moicheia," which is the ordinary Greek word for adultery.
The intent appears to be to distinguish a true marriage from concubinage. What is being said is that if a man and a woman are in fact married, the bond is inseparable. But if they are not married, just "living together," then there is no lawful marriage and there can be a separation or annulment. The wording of the New American Bible for Matthew 19:9 is a translation that gives us this sense.


Related image
Louie Verrecchio too accepts the magisterium and the dispensation given to him as opposed to what the Church has always taught.: pre- figures Amoris Laeitia

Vox Cantoris offended : new theology was used to grant liberal dispensations and annulments

The new theology was used to justify liberal dispensations and annulments.This is the practical 'exceptions factory' that we all know of: Amoris Laetitia officially approves this

So there cannot be any known case of someone saved who is living in mortal sin. Similarly there cannot be any known case of someone saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance without the baptism of water

If we eliminate the 'known exceptions' theory, Cardinal Marx and Cardinal Kasper would have to admit that there is no change in doctrine : Vatican Council II supports the 16th century Jesuit missionaries