Thursday, June 22, 2017

Brother Andre Marie MICM, the Prior at the St. Benedict Center does not correct Frs.Brian Harrison and Cekada,Bishops Sanborn,Pirvanus,Kelly and Fellay

Image result for Photo of Brother Andre Marie MICM

Even Fr.Brian Harrison needs to clarify this issue.Since he writes ,'It seems that in recent debates over “Feeneyism” in traditional Catholic circles, the lion’s share of the cut-and-thrust has been devoted to issue (a) – that is, to arguing for or against the validity of ‘baptism of desire’ and ‘baptism of blood’...' 1
Fr.Harrison  takes it for granted also that the baptism of desire and baptism of blood are known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Fr.Harrison was revising an article for, which assumed the dead who are saved  with the baptism of desire and who are now in Heaven are known  exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). But where are these people? Who can see them in Heaven or on earth? No one.So how can they be exceptions to EENS?
No one - and yet Brother Andre Marie MICM, the Prior at the St. Benedict Center does not correct Fr.Brian Harrison.
For Ralph Martin, Vatican Council II is not Feeneyite. Since for him there are explicit exceptions to the dogma . This is his irrational reasoning.There is no correction from the St.Benedict Center.
On May 25, 2013 I wrote on this blog 
No correction from Bro. Andre Marie MICM : the baptism of desire was never an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney and neither physically visible to us
Image result for Photo of Fencing
In  2013 the St.Benedict Centers(SBC) and the Society of St.Pius X(SSPX), traditionalists,  would argue.The SSPX would say that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma EENS and the SSBC would say that it is not.They would restrict the communication to theology.And all of us would be going in circles.
Image result for Photo of Going in Circles
Imagine it.There are no baptism of desire cases.So they are not exceptions to EENS and all of us are arguing for and against.
Neither of the two groups of good Catholics would simply say that there are no physically known baptism of desire cases in the present times. So invisible cases were not relevant to the dogma EENS.
Since 2013 none of them are still saying it!
There is no clarification.
The SSPX would cite Mystici Corporis as if it was an exception to Feeneyite EENS. Brother Andre Marie simply had to say that there are no known cases of the baptism of desire.They are invisible. They do not exist in our reality.So Mystici Corporis is not a rupture with Feeneyite EENS.The text does not say that there are visible exceptions to EENS.
There is a long list of baptism of desire references on the Internet posted by Fr.Anthony Cekada.Brother Andre Marie does not tell him that these are references to invisible people. They never were exceptions to EENS.Hypothetical cases, possibilities known only to God, O.K.But don't make a connection with EENS.
 Bishops Sanborn, Pirvanus and Kelly all swear that there are  visible cases of invisible baptism of desire.And there is no one at the St. Benedict Centers to help them out.
There is another problem. All of them like the St. Benedict Centers interpret Lumen Gentium 16(invincible ignorance)as a break with EENS.Wikipedia and the magisterium does the same. Like at the time of Arian there was a crisis, today we  we are in a visible for all, baptism of desire crisis.
So when is Brother Andre Marie going to announce that LG 16 does not refer to a visible person in 2017 ? It could be helpful for me.
People think I am a Feeneyite and so I must be rejecting Vatican Council II since LG 16 is a rupture with the dogma EENS. I mean it is a rupture for Harrison, Cekada,Brother Andre Marie, Roberto de Mattei, Bishop Clarence Kelly, Bishops Pirvanus and Sanborn,Ignacio Barreiro, the Hildebrands, Bishops Fellay and Williams, Archbishop Lefebvre...............
There is one positive development.No more are there those  old arguments on the baptism of desire(BOD). I do  not see it any more. Perhaps it is  because I am no more on the traditionalist forums. They generally have banned me.The traditionalist and sedevacantist forums are run by Catholics who have had their formation under Archbishop Lefebvre. For him too invisible baptism of desire was a visible rupture with EENS.So Vatican Council II became a break with Tradition for him. He did not know that the fault was there with his interpretation.There could also be a Vatican Council II Feeneyite.
Recently on a pro-Bishop Williamson forum I mentioned that invisible baptism of desire was not an exceptin to EENS and so Fr. Pfieffer like Bishop Williamson had made a mistake.End of the discussion and my membership there for them.
Fr.Brian Harrison has stopped writing on EENS.He does not want me to contact him.
Fr.Francois Laisney has stopped writing on EENS. He does not criticize the SBC.
Rorate Caeili does not criticize the Feeneyites any more.
But the problem still is there: VC II is  a break with EENS for Rorate Caeili, the traditionalists and sedevacantists.So it means invisible people are still visible for them.
So no one corrected Pope Benedict XVI in March 2016 when he said that Vatican Council II was a rupture with EENS according to the 16th century. No one complained.Since  the traditionalists and sedevantists agree with him.It is a rupture with EENS for them even though there are no known exceptions.
Ralph Martin does not want to talk about this.
Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Cekada do not want to touch this subject.They cannot  admit they had it wrong all along  over invisible people being visible.
Brother Andre Marie will not announce that the baptism of desire being an invisible case is not an exception to EENS.
He will not say being saved in invincible ignorance being an invisible case is not an exception to EENS.
LG 16 etc refer to hypothetical cases and they should not have been mentioned in Vatican Council II.This was the bad reasoning in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.It was carried over into the Council.
Brother Andre Marie will not say that LG 16 refers to an  invisible case in June 2017 and so is not an  exception to EENS. Vatican Council II is Feeneyite.Hypothetical cases cannot be exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.
Vatican Council II is in harmony with traditional EENS as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century.
When is he going to say this? This should be a happy discovery for him.Speak in terms of being physically invisible and visible. Don't get into theology.The Magisterium's theology is based on physically invisible people being visible.
-Lionel Andrades


Clarification/disclaimer would be helpful on the SBC website

No comments: