There is a report by Eric Gajiewski(Trad Cat Knight) on his blog which was written in 2015. It is referred to by Sanctius Bonifatius on Gloria TV.
It says :
He is a "Vatican II Feeneyite," i.e., he not only accepts the heresies of Vatican II and the post-Vatican II "popes", but he denies Baptism of Desire (BOD) and Baptism of Blood (BOB) as being sufficient for Church membership and salvation without Baptism with water.
Lionel: With Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) there are no heresies in Vatican Council II.With Vatican Council II (Cushingite) the Council emerges as a break with Tradition and is heretical.It becomes heretical since a false premise is used to interpret the Council.
Unlike the "Dimond Brothers" at Most Holy Family Monastery who are sedevacantist-Fenneyites and twist the teachings of the Church beyond recognition regarding BOD and BOB, Andrades has a twisted theory that is as ridiculous as it is amusing and pathetic.
Lionel: I do not have any personal theory on the baptism of desire(BOD) and baptism of blood(BOB). I am simply pointing out that these cases are not physically visible in the present times. So they cannot be relevant or exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
This is something factual and objective for all people.
Fr.Stefano Visintin osb, the Rector of the University of St.Anselm, Rome says the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are not exceptions to the dogma EENS. He means physically invisible cases cannot be exceptions or relevant to Feeneyite EENS.
Similarly Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson say that BOD, BOB and I.I are not exceptions to EENS. His observation is supported by many priests in Rome to whom I have spoken to.
So this is not just a personal opinion of mine.
He attempts to salvage both Vatican II and Fennyism by making a distinction between "visible/invisible" and "implicit/explicit."
Lionel: When we make the distinction we do not confuse what is invisible as being invisible.
In philosophical reasoning it is normal to make the explicit-implicit, in theory-in practise, dejure-defacto reasoning.
According to Andrades, since no one can see the dead, we don't know if anyone is in Heaven without Baptism in water, so BOD and BOB are "implicit" and hypothetical.
Lionel: Precisely.BOD, BOB and I.I refer to people who are in Heaven.For us they are theoretical cases.But for the sedevacantists and traditionalists BOD, BOB and I.I are exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS. So they must be visible and known in personal cases for them to be exceptions to EENS, for them.
So when I ask Eric,if Lumen Gentium 16 refers to a visible or invisible case for him he will not answer? It has to refer to a visible case for him otherwise how else could Vatican Council II be a rupture with EENS. Since it is a rupture with EENS Eric can justify his sedevacantism based on Vatican Council II.
Likewise, when Unitatis Redintegratio of Vatican II claims that Christ uses Protestant sects as a "means of salvation," we can't see the dead, so it's hypothetical for us in 2015 and is consistent with pre-Vatican II ecclesiology.
Lionel: If someone is saved in imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3) or in some other way(LG 8,GS 22,AG 11 etc) in a Protestant community,it is a reference to a hypothetical. It can only be a hypothetical case. Since we cannot know of a Protestant saved outside the Church.He would be in Heaven.
These theoretical and hypothetical cases are not objective to be exceptions or relevant to the dogma EENS.They do not contradict EENS as it was known for example St.Ignatius Loyola and the missionaries in the 16th century.
He claims you can read the documents of Vatican II with "Cushingism" (his neologism for Richard Cardinal Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston who condemned Fr. Feeney) and "Feeneyism."
Lionel: Feeneyism refers to the philosophy and theology which considers hypothetical cases as just being hypothetical. Cushingism is the philosophy and theology which considers hypothetical cases as being objective(philosophy) and then infers that they are objective exceptions to Feeneyite EENS(theology).
Sedevacantists, traditionalists and the present magisterium are Cushingites.Their premise and conclusion in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and EENS is different from mine.
He even makes obviously historically inaccurate remarks, such as BOD and BOB without being followed by Baptism with water started with the Baltimore Catechism in the 19th century. (I guess he never read St. Thomas Aquinas expounding on the subject written in the 13th century; and I can go back much farther.).
Lionel: St.Thomas Aquinas only mentioned the case of the catechumen. He did not state that BOB and BOB were exceptions to the strict interpretation of EENS. This had to be inferred by the liberal theologians in Baltimore and Boston.So in the Baltimore Catechism the theoretical case of the unknown catechism is called a baptism of desire. It is placed in the Baptism Section of that Catechism.There are no known cases of the baptism of desire and we cannot administer the baptism of desire as we can with the baptism of water.The baptism of water is visible but BOD, BOB and I.I are invisible.
The was a mistake in the Baltimore Catechism and this mistake was reflected in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and then in Vatican Council II. It was assumed that the baptism of desire referred to a known person saved outside the Church and so was an exception to Feeneyite EENS.From there we get the irrational New Theology which is magisterial today and accepted by all Catholics unknowingly, including the sedevacantists.
This is now not just something academic from the past. Since now there can be two interpretations of Vatican Council II today one is rational and the other irrational and it is the outcome of a specific premise.
Andrades doesn't understand the problem, so he'll never comprehend the answer. From his blog in red:
It is a dogma of the church that all need the baptism of water for salvation.
It is not a dogma of the Church that BOD is sufficient and must exclude the baptism of water.
The Church teaches infallibly that BOD and BOB are sufficient for salvation without Baptism by water through Her Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. Here are but a few examples:
A letter of Pope Innocent II to the Bishop of Cremona (1140) reads:
We answer to your question: The presbyter who died without the water of baptism, since he persevered in the faith of Holy Mother Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, we affirm without any doubt that he became free of the original sin and reached the joy of eternal life" (Denzinger n. 388--Emphasis mine).
Pope Innocent III in his letter Debitum pastoralis of 1206 (well before the Baltimore Catechism) states:
Pope Pius XII:
“In the present economy there is no other way of communicating [sanctifying grace] to the child who has not yet the use of reason [other than Baptism]. But, nevertheless, the state of grace at the moment of death is absolutely necessary for salvation. Without it, it is not possible to attain supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God. An act of love can suffice for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace and supply for the absence of Baptism; for the unborn child or for the newly born, this way is not open.” (Address to Midwives, Oct. 29, 1951, qtd. in John McCarthy, Problems in Theology, Vol. I (Newman Press, 1956), p. 53--Emphasis mine)
Lionel: It is hoped that these persons are in Heaven.Above we have speculation with good will. None of the people mentioned above could know for sure.
In individual cases only God can know. In general the ordinary means of salvation is faith and baptism in the Catholic Church. Outside the Church there is no salvation.
"Baptism, the door and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire necessary unto salvation for all, is not validly conferred except through the ablution of true and natural water with the prescribed form of words." (Canon 737--Emphasis mine)
Lionel: It does not say that these cases are defacto and known in the present times. So we do not have a problem here.It does not contradict the dogma EENS.
"Those who have died without baptism are not to be given ecclesiastical burial. Catechumens who die without baptism through no fault of their own are to be counted among the baptized." (Canon 1239--Emphasis mine)
Lionel: Again this is hypothetical and theoretical.So it is not an issue with reference to the dogma EENS. It does not contradict the old ecclesiology of the Church based on Feeneyite EENs.
Note: I am looking at this with Feeneyism and not the sedevacantist Cushingism.
The Code of Canon Law is a universal disciplinary law and cannot teach error. It was promulgated by Pope Benedict XV.
Lionel: Cardinal Ratzinger has changed Canon Law to adapt to invisible-for-us-baptism of desire.This was the New Theology of Fr.Karl Rahner which he protected as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and then as pope.Rahner placed the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 with this objective mistake, in the Denzinger.
Anyway these cases are hypothetical.You and Bishop Sanborn do not know of any specific case. So how can you assume in principle that there are persons saved as such or going to be saved as such when you do not know and cannot know of any specific case?. How can you make a theoretical rule when no one in Church in history could know of any case?
First, we DO know of some specific cases: From the Roman Martyrology:
Lionel : No we do not know. Someone from the past cannot be an exception to the dogma EENS in 2017. We do not know any person today who will go to Heaven without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
"January 23: At Rome, St. Emerentiana, a Virgin and Martyr. She was just a catechumen when she was stoned by the Gentiles while praying on the tomb of St. Agnes, who was her foster-sister."
Lionel: She is not an example of a specific case of someone in the present times who has been saved outside the Church. She was canonised as a saint in the past. Could she not have been baptised before or after her death as St Thomas Aquinas and St.Francis Xavier tell us? Who at that time saw her in Heaven without the baptism of water? No one.
Secondly how can a possibility of the past be a known reality in 2017 ?
Even if for example there were 19 cases of BOD, BOB or I.I over the last 50 years how would we know? No one can say that there was even one such case this year.Yet this is being inferred as being a known case of salvation outside the Church.
I do not know the name and surname of any BOD, BOB and I.I case who was born and who died,over the last hundred years for example.
"April 12: At Braga in Portugal, the martyr St. Victor, who, although only a catechumen, refused to adore an idol, and confessed Jesus Christ with great constancy. After suffering many torments, he was beheaded, and thus merited to be baptized in his own blood."
Lionel: Someone from the past cannot be an exception in 2017,to all needing to be members of the Church for salvation.In the present times there are no BOD,BOB and I.I cases.
"June 22: At Verulam in England, in the time of Diocletian, St. Alban, martyr, who gave himself up in order to save a cleric whom he had harbored. After being scourged and subjected to bitter torments, he was sentenced to capital punishment. With him also suffered one of the soldiers who led him to execution, for he was converted to Christ on the way and merited to be baptized in his own blood. St. Bede the Venerable has left an account of the noble combat of St. Alban and his companion."
Lionel: We hope and believe he is in Heaven and it does not have to exclude the baptism of water.A possibility from the past cannot be a known exception to the dogma EENS in 1949, 1965 or 2017.
"June 28: At Alexandria, in the persecution of Severus, the holy martyrs Plutarch, Serenus, Heraclides a catechumen, Heron a neophyte, another Serenus, Rháis a catechumen, Potamioena, and Marcella her mother."(All emphasis above in the Roman Martyrology is mine).
We know they died as catechumens. We know catechumens are unbaptized or they wouldn't be called catechumens had they received the sacrament with water. They were "baptized in their blood" and are listed as saints in the authoritative Roman Martyrology . It can't be wrong because the Church is infallible in declaring people saints.
Lionel: The Church has canonised them saints.Period.No where has it been 'infallibly' said that they are in Heaven without the baptism of water.
It is like the case of Dismas, the good thief. We do not know if he was a disciple of Jesus and so was baptised.Anyway neither can we say that Dismas is an exception to the dogma EENS in 2017 or that we know of any Dismas in the present times.Since outside the Church there is no known salvation.
Otherwise, we might be praying to the damned; such is unthinkable. So here are your specific cases, Mr. Andrades. If they can happen then they can happen in 2015!
Lionel: Specific cases refer to people who are there, who are known, who are visible , whom we can meet. People from the past are specific cases in 2017 ? They are specific exceptions to all in 2017 needing to formally enter the Church to avoid Hell?
Second, Andrades sounds like a bad inverse of the movie The Sixth Sense---"I can't see dead people!"
Lionel: I am responding here to Eric and the others who say that that LG 16 etc are exceptions to the dogma EENS."I can't see dead people ! So how is LG 16 or Vatican Council II a rupture with Tradition"?
If there are exceptions then there must be visible cases on earth. Where are the exceptions?.
"I cannot see any exception to EENS in 2017. I cannot see any person saved with BOD, BOB and I.I with or without the baptism of water. I cannot see any one who will be a St. Emerentiana or a St. Victor today. If there is any such person it would be known only to God."
So I cannot see how hypothetical cases in Vatican Council II can be a rupture with the dogma EENS.
The most important principle he won't acknowledge is that hypothetical statements can be heresy!
If someone said "Christ COULD commit sin" this is heresy because Christ is God, and God can't go against His Own Nature. It doesn't matter that we can't see Christ commit sin, so it's only invisible and implicit for us in 2015. It's heresy. Likewise, I can flip Andrades weird verification criteria on him. In 1950, Pope Pius XII canonized St. Maria Goretti. He couldn't see her in Heaven; he can't see the dead. No one can see her now in 2015, so how do we know she is in Heaven? By the authority of the Church!
Lionel: I believe she is in Heaven.But firstly you can no more say 'by the authority of the Catholic Church' since your a sede Eric and you reject Vatican Council II and the teachings of the popes since John XXIII.
Secondly with the irrational theology of Cushingism 'the authority' is interpreting Vatican Council II with a false premise and so the conclusion is a rupture with the magisterium; the Church authority of the past.
So today with Cushingism we have magisterial heresy.
This was confirmed by Pope Benedict in March 2016 when he said that EENS today is no more like it was for the missionaries of the 16th century. So 'the authority' made a mistake in the 16th century or is making one now.
The same Church that authoritatively decrees that four catechumens are saints in Heaven baptized by there own blood. No "seeing the dead" is needed. When Vatican II states Protestant sects are a "means of salvation" you'll never find proof because it can't happen---but just as "an hypothesis" it is heresy, as it contradicts the True Faith.
His three questions to me:
1.Baptism of desire (BOD) is not relevant to EENS. So why does Fr. Anthony Cekada say the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary religious, at the St. Benedict Centers USA, are in mortal sin for not accepting BOD with reference to EENS.
It has nothing to do with Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (EENS) "Outside The Church There Is No Salvation." It has to do with HOW membership is obtained. St. Benedict Center denies BOB and BOD as understood by the Church and are in mortal sin.
Lionel: I repeat when there are no known cases of BOD, BOB and I.I why should they say that these cases exist and that they are exceptions to Feeneyite EENS ? Why should they interpret EENS with irrational Cushingite theology?
2.The SBC say they accept BOD and it will be followed with the baptism of water.These are hypothetical cases. Why does Fr. Cekada consider hypothetical cases as being exceptions or relevant to the dogma EENS?
Once again, it has nothing to do with EENS. BOD is sufficient in and of itself. They deny Church teaching. Hypothetical statements can be heresy.
Lionel: So they are not denying BOD and neither are they denying the dogma EENS. Eric instead is affirming visible for us BOD which is irrational and non traditional and is rejecting the dogma EENS, with his visible-for-us BOD.This is heresy. Also he will have changed the Nicene Creed to 'I believe in three known baptisms which exclude the baptism of water, they are desire, blood and invincible ignorance.'
I,Lionel, believe in only one known baptism it is the baptism of water.BOD,BOB and I.I are unknown to me as baptisms.In general they are unknown to every body.
3.So why does the professor at the sedevacantist seminary make this claim that they are in in mortal sin? Is he not wrong?
No, he is not wrong.
Lionel: In other words like Eric and Bishop Sanborn we have to accept that invisible baptism of desire is visible.
Then we have to conclude that this invisible baptism of desire is a visible exception to all needing to be members of the Church for salvation.
Then we have to conclude that there is known salvation outside the Church since invisible baptism of desire is visible.
Then those who do not say that invisible for us baptism of desire is visible and is an exception to traditional EENS ,will be considered to be in mortal sin.
Those who admit that they can see BOD, BOB and I.I cases in the present times will not be in mortal sin.
So Fr. Antony Cekada is not wrong for Eric.😊
Mr. Andrades will continue to repeat the same drivel, and accuse those who disagree with his heresy "illogical" and "irrational" even after all this has been explained to him. It won't register.
Lionel: I still can't get myself to say invisible baptism of desire is a visible exception to the dogma EENS. Somethin'
doesn't ''ring' here.👀
I wonder how he considers his "popes" not heretical since they can't see the irrationality and preach near universal salvation in a one-world religion.
Lionel: The two popes are heretical since they are Cushingites.I have explained this many times on my blog.
In March 2016 Pope Benedict XVI made a heretical statement on EENS and Vatican Council II in the Avvenire interview.Any one who says that LG 16 is an exception to the dogma EENS is irrational and sets himself for being a heretical.However this apostasy exists on such a grand scale that I would not want to call any one a heretic.They usually are in ignorance.
JPII, Benedict XVI, and now Francis, would all disagree with him. If they are irrational, they can't be popes, for habitual insanity precludes one from holding papal office.
Lionel: But even the sedes and trads are irrational when they use Cushingism as a theology.Archbishop Lefebvre only knew of a Cushingite interpretation of Vatican Council II. It was something he overlooked. So in this sense we cannot blame the two living popes. Make allowances for them as we do for Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Cekada and the other sedevacantists.
If they are not irrational and perpetrate this alleged error, they are heretics and can't be popes. The Holy Ghost is supposed to guide the "pope", but Lionel Andrades is better guided (so he thinks).
Lionel: When sedevacantists and traditionalists hold that invisible baptism of desire is a visible exception to the dogma EENS,we must make allowances for also the popes and not condemn them. We cannot only blame Cardinal Ratzinger for not knowing all this during the excommunication of Arcbishop Lefebvre. Neither did Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops know it.
Do not engage this man. Pray for him.
Lionel : Yes pray for me but please don't keep saying invisible people are visible in the present times. It leads to heresy.It is the same heresy being followed by the two popes who can be popes even though they are as heretical as the sedevacantists.