I have been sending these blogposts to the sedevacantist Most Holy Family seminary,Florida over the years but I get no reply.
Bishop Sanborn has posted an article on the Internet, The Anti-Feeneyite Catechism. This article still does not respond to the what I have writtedn in my blog posts, the points raised there.He should know by now that I am not using the apologetics of the St. Benedict Centers. I speak for myself.
I recently sent the following blog post to the seminary and received a mechanical reply saying they would respond-but there is no reply.About a year back the bishop said not to send him any e-mails.
The sedevacantist Bishop Sanborn uses Cushingism to interpret Vatican Council II and seems unaware of the Feeneyite choicehttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/the-sedevacantist-bishop-sanborn-uses.html
Nor is there any comment on this blog post:
Bishop Sanborn uses situation ethics, subjectivism and known exceptions to EENS, as a reasoning, to interpret Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition.The liberals do the samehttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/bishop-sanborn-uses-situation-ethics.html
Even on Twitter the priests of the seminary would not respond.
Fundamentally what I am saying is that the baptism of desire is always hypothetical for us and so cannot be an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiiam nulla salus(EENS). So I can accept the baptism of desire without rejecting the strict interpretation of EENS.This is not the apologetics of the St. Benedict Centers. So they can call me a Feeneyite but not for the reasons mentioned in Bishop Sanborn's article.
For me Fr.Leonard Feeney was saying there are no exceptions to the dogma EENS, there are no known cases of the baptism of desire for them to be exceptions.He accepted the possibility of the baptism of desire of a catechumen who dies before receiving it.Fr.Leonard Feeney did not consider it relevant or an exception to the dogma EENS.The Cushingites were making it relevant.They were also re-interpreting all historical references to the baptism of desire as being visible and known in real life.
Anyway this is how I understand the issue so why doesn't Bishop Sanborn comment instead of just lumping me with every one and repeating the same liberal propaganda on this issue to avoid saying that the sedevacantists and traditionalists were wrong all these years.