Tuesday, September 13, 2016

When the saints referred to the baptism of desire it was to an invisible case


 
 
 
 
 
 
It is often said that the saints taught the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance.
However the saints knew that these were invisible cases.
So Thomas Aquinas referred to the man in the forest saved in invincible ignorance. He knew that this was someone not personally known .He could not see this personal physically in Heaven or on earth.However the liberal theologians have inferred that St. Thomas Aquinas was referring to a known case, which was an explicit exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

St.Robert Bellarmine teaches the baptism of desire according to Fr. Anthony Cekada.However it would be an invisible case.Since the baptism of desire can only be an invisible case for us human beings. It cannot be known or described in particular cases. It cannot be given like the baptism of water. It cannot be repeated physically like the baptism of water.So St. Robert Bellarmine would have been referring to a hypothetical case.It would be speculation with good will.

Image result for Photo of Fr.Anthony Cekada
However Fr. Anthony Cekada mentions the baptism of desire with reference to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and criticizes Fr. Leonard Feeney. So like the liberal Jesuit theologians in the 1940's he is inferring that the baptism of desire refers to a visible case. This is his premise. Then he concludes like the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 that it is an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and criticizes the St. Benedict Centers in the USA. He says that their members are in mortal sin for not accepting the baptism of desire ( visible).
Similarly the Dimond Brothers at the Most Holy Family Monastery reject the baptism of desire. Since they think it is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the dogma cannot have any exceptions.However it is an exception only if it is a visible case.Like Fr. Cekada and the other sedevacantists they assume the baptism of desire refers to known cases, in the present times.
Similarly they interpret Lumen Gentium 16 as referring to a known case. So Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They reject Vatican Council II and then go into sedevacantism.Their  reason for going into sedevacantism, it was confirmed, by a sedevacantist blogger,  was Vatican Council II.
This is Vatican Council II ( Cushingite) in which hypothetical cases;invisible cases, are considered objectively visible.
When the error is pointed out to them they cite the saints and infer that the saints were referring to visible cases!
-Lionel Andrades
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

Fr. Matthias Gaudron SSPX, Germany assumes subjective cases are objective, invisible cases are visible and then interprets Vatican Council II with this irrationality as does Bishop Bernard Fellay

Image result for Photo of Fr.Matthias Gaudron SSPX Germany Berlin seminaryFr. Matthias Gaudron was ordained a priest of the SSPX by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais in 1990. For 12 years he was rector of the International Seminary of the Sacred Heart in Zaitzkofen (Bavaria). He is currently serving at the Priory of St. Peter in Berlin it is reported.
He is the author of the Catholic Catechism of the Crisis in the Church (Angelus Press), and a consultant to the SSPX's Roman Commission responsible for the doctrinal discussions with the Holy See.

He criticizes subjectivism being interpreted as being objective, in Amoris Laetitia.Yet he himself interprets the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and Vatican Council II with the same subjectivism. He  assumes there are known (objective) cases of the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance.So it means that these cases are subjectively seen and known to him in the present times. So they are objective exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Feeneyite).The exceptions are objective and are subjectively known in 2016 is his reasoning and that of the SSPX bishops and priests.
The Society of St.Pius X, Italy (Fraternità Sacerdotale San Pio X), Albano on the subject of ecumenism quoted a section of his book Catechismo della crisi nella Chiesa.It is being sold at SSPX  centers.



Once again, like the District Superior at Albano, Fr.Pierpaolo Petrucci, it is assumed that 'imperfect communion in the Church'(UR 3) is an explicit exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.How would they know? Subjectively of course.
The report on ecumenism by Fr.Matthias Gaudron is cited in Fr.Pierpaolo Petrucci's article on an ecumenical meeting at the Basilica of St. Paul Outside the Walls, when Pope Francis was present.
There is still no clarification from the Fraternita San Pio X on the factual error made in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 with this irrational reasoning.
 

Here are two passages translated from Fr.Mathias Gaudron's report on ecumenism.
What is the innovation in Vatican II? Vatican Council II has tried to find some sort of intermediate condition between membership and non-membership in the Catholic Church . The non-Catholic Christians , according to this view , would be in " imperfect communion " with the Church (cf. UR , n, 3 , Lumen Gentium , n . 15). This implies , of course , the possibility that members of non-Catholic communities may achieve eternal salvation even without the desire ( even implicitly ) to join the Catholic truth .

What is the traditional teaching of the Church on this subject?
The traditional teaching of the Church is this: to be saved we must belong to the Church either in re ( that is, actually , through baptism , profession of the Catholic faith and submission to the hierarchy ) , or at least in voto ( through what is called baptism of desire, which may be explicit or implicit ) [13] . Therefore those who do not have the Catholic faith or who are not submissive to the hierarchy , and that , moreover , they have within themselves no desire, not even implied,to seek the truth , they cannot , if they persist in this disposition, obtain salvation : this is the meaning of the adage extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( "outside the Church there is no salvation "), which therefore does not exclude the possibility that a person can be saved outside the legal boundaries of the Catholic Church , but the Church teaches that without , ie without being a part of , or at least be ordered to it, with the baptism of desire , men can not achieve eternal salvation.1
 
 
Passage above with comments. 



What is the innovation in Vatican II? Vatican Council II has tried to find some sort of intermediate condition between membership and non-membership in the Catholic Church . The non-Catholic Christians , according to this view , would be in " imperfect communion " with the Church (cf. UR , n, 3 , Lumen Gentium , n . 15). This implies , of course , the possibility that members of non-Catholic communities may achieve eternal salvation even without the desire ( even implicitly ) to join the Catholic truth . 
 
Lionel: 'This implies , of course , the possibility that members of non-Catholic communities may achieve eternal salvation even without the desire ( even implicitly ) to join the Catholic truth.'  So this would contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Feeneyite) for Fr.Matthias, if there were known cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church.Yes it would -but only if UR 3 and LG 15 referred to explicit cases, objectively known in the present times.Then there would be a conflict with the dogma.
This is the error of  Cushingism.Hypothetical references are seen as being objective.Cushingites use an irrational premise ( visible cases of the baptism of desire) to create a false conclusion ( known exceptions to EENS, objectively visible in the present times which are a rupture with Tradition).
 
__________________________
 

What is the traditional teaching of the Church on this subject?
The traditional teaching of the Church is this: to be saved we must belong to the Church either in re ( that is, actually , through baptism , profession of the Catholic faith and submission to the hierarchy ) ,
Lionel: The traditional teaching of the Church ( Feeneyism) is that one must be a member of the Catholic Church actually through the baptism of water, the profession of the Catholic faitha and the submission to the hierarchy.
________________________________
 
 
 
 or at least in voto ( through what is called baptism of desire, which may be explicit or implicit ) .
Lionel:How can the baptism of desire be explicit like the baptism of water? We can see the baptism of water being given.It can be repeated.Who can see or know a baptism of desire case in 2016? This was the mistake of the Baltimore Catechism ( and subsequent catechisms) and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
So now in the Church there are two theologies- Cushingism and  traditional Feeneyism.
 
____________________________________
 
 
 
 
 
 Therefore those who do not have the Catholic faith or who are not submissive to the hierarchy , and that , moreover , they have within themselves no desire, not even implied,to seek the truth , they cannot , if they persist in this disposition, obtain salvation : this is the meaning of the adage extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( "outside the Church there is no salvation "),
Lionel: Correct. Agreed!
_____________________________________
 
 
 
 
which therefore does not exclude the possibility that a person can be saved outside the legal boundaries of the Catholic Church,
Lionel: This is Cushingism.It is the cause of the problem. This is the new theology of Rahner and Ratzinger. By assuming there are hypothetical cases. which are explicit, an innovative new theology was brought into the Church.By assuming visible cases of the baptism of desire( false premise) are objective exceptions to the dogma EENS ( Feeneyite) a new non traditional conclusion was created within the Church. This is a new doctrine.With Cushingism there is salvation outside the Church.With the traditional theology ( Feeneyism) there is no known salvation outside the Church.Hypothetical cases, for example, cannot be explicit for us humans in 2016.
 
 
 
 
_______________________________________
 
 
 
 
 but the Church teaches that without , ie without being a part of , or at least be ordered to it, with the baptism of desire , men can not achieve eternal salvation.1
 
 
 

 

 Lionel: It is still hypothetical.We do not know of any person who 'without being a part of (the visible Church) is at least ordered to it ( without the baptism of water) and has been saved with the baptism of desire.Here something subjective is assumed to be objective by Fr. Matthias Gaudron. This is the same irrational reasoning which he criticizes in Amoris Laetitiae.
-Lionel Andrades
 
 
 
1.
 
 
 
______________________________________ 
 
February 5, 2014
If Fr.Leonard Feeney was correct or wrong, still imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3) and the baptism of desire are not explicit for us : no clarification still from SSPX Italy http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/02/if-frleonard-feeney-was-correct-or.html




September 11, 2016
Cardinal Muller, Archbishop Di Noia and Bishop Fellay's theology is based on invisible cases being visible, what is not seen as being seen http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/09/cardinal-muller-archbishop-di-noia-and.html

Image result for Photo of Fr. Pier Paolo PetrucciFr.Pierpaulo Petrucci, District Superior, SSPX , Albano,Italy mixes up invisible cases as being visible, what is not seen as being seen


Fr. Daniel Couture,SSPX District Superior, Canada mixes up invisible cases as being visible and so rejects the traditional exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/09/fr-daniel-couturesspx-district-superior.html




TERMS DEFINED

Feeneyism: It is the old theology and philosophical reaoning which says there are no known exceptions past or present, to the dogma EENS.There are no explicit cases to contradict the traditional interpretation of EENS.
Cushingism: It is the new theology and philosophical reasoning, which assumes there are known exceptions, past and present, to the dogma EENS, on the need for all to formally enter the Church.It assumes that the baptism of desire etc are not hypothetical but objectively known.In principle hypothetical cases are objective in the present times.
Baptism of Desire. It refers to the hypothetical case of an unknown catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved. Since this is an invisible case in our reality it is not relevant to the dogma EENS.
Invincible Ignorance. This refers to the hypothetical case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.
Council of Florence.One of the three Councils which defined the dogma EENS.It did not mention any exceptions.
Liberal theologians.They reinterpreted the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, as objective cases, known in the present times.
Vatican Council II(Cushingite). It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II with Cushingism.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer not to hypothetical but known cases in the present times. So Vatican Council II emerges as a break with the dogma EENS.
Vatican Council II (Feeneyite).It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II with Feeneyism.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to hypothetical cases, which are unknown personally in the present times.So Vatican Council II is not a break with EENS, the Syllabus of Errors, ecumenism of return, the Nicene Creed ( Feeneyite-one baptism),the teaching on the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation and the non separation of Church and State( since all need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell).
Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston. It assumed hypothetical cases were defacto known in the present times. So it presented the baptism of desire etc as an explicit exception, to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS.It censured Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.Since they did not assume that the baptism of desire referred to a visible instead of invisible case.The Letter made the baptism of desire etc relevant to EENs.From the second part of this Letter has emerged the New Theology.
Baltimore Catechism. It assumed that the desire for the baptism of an unknown catechumen, who dies before receiving it and was saved, was a baptism like the baptism of water. So it was placed in the Baptism Section of the catechism. In other words it was wrongly assumed that the baptism of desire is visible and repeatable like the baptism of water or that we can administer it like the baptism of water.
Catechism of Pope X. It followed the Baltimore Catechism and placed the baptism of desire in the Baptism Section.
________________________

Lionel: He affirms Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) and the dogma EENS ( Feeneyite) and , is waiting for the rest of the Church to follow.
John Martignoni: The American Catholic apologist.He says the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to 'zero cases' in our reality. So they are not exceptions to EENS.
Fr.S.Visintin osb: He is the Dean of Theology at the St.Anselm Pontifical University in Rome.He agrees with Martignoni.
__________________________