Monday, July 31, 2017

To be a Feeneyite is to be a Catholic.It's the Feeneyites who have the real Catholic identity. The trads and sedes have lost it by assuming invisible people are visible

This is a report on Gloria TV by an Anonymous Catholic who calls himself Sanctus Bonifatius

You decide: Saint Thomas Aquinas (Catholic) or Lionel Andrades (Feeneyite)

Lionel Andrades is a Feeneyite (someone who denies baptism of blood and baptism of desire as being sufficient for becoming a member of the Church and for salvation as being a substitute for sacramental baptism) he also accepts the heresies of the so called “Second Vatican Council” which for example in Unitatis Retintegratio 3 says that heretical sects are “means of salvation”.
Lionel: I deny this. I do not have to deny the baptism of desire(BOD) and blood(BOB) since they are speculative and theoretical cases for me. They cannot be anything else for us human beings. So they are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nullas salus(EENS) for me.I accept implicit for us baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance.
UR 3 does not say heretical sects are means of salvation for me but it refers to the possibility of salvation in another religion. This is speculative and theoretical.It does not contradict the dogma EENS.
We must note that the Vatican Council II Fathers had accepted the New Theology, Cushingite theology based on invisible for us baptism of desire being a visible exception to the dogma EENS. However inspite of their philosophical error, in Vatican Council II, the Council can still be interpreted in harmony with Tradition, when the philosophical error is avoided.

 He made up a ridiculous theory where he distinguishes between “visible/invisible”, “explicit/implicit” and “theoretical/practical”.
Lionel: This is not a personal theory. It is part of life and philosophy to distinguish between things visible and invisible, explicit or implicit, hypothetical and concrete,in theory and in practise.

 For him the mentioned document of Vatican II. only refers to “theoretical cases” and that there is no one known in 2017 who is saved in so called “imperfect communion” with the Church it supports the pre-Vatican II. ecclesiology. 
Lionel: Agreed they refer to only theoretical cases. This is something obvious. We cannot see or meet someone saved without the baptism of water in 2017 and instead with the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism  blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I).

Andrades does not realise that the statement of Unitatis Retigratio 3 is in itself heretical because even if it would refer to so called “theoretical cases” it would be against the Catholic Faith, because according to Catholic teaching non-catholic sects can never be “means of salvation”. But don´t try to explain this to Mr. Andrades, he will not comprehend it.
Lionel: Theoretical cases do not refer to concrete and known means of salvation in the present times, saved outside the Church. A possibility is not an exception to the dogma EENS in 2017. Sanctus Bonifactius(SB) could not accept this in my communication with him.
It is common for traditionalists to assume possibilities of BOD, BOB and I.I are known cases in the present times.There may not be a single such case this year.Possibilities are not exceptions to EENS.

When it comes to baptism, according to him because we cannot see the people in heaven, we cannot know whether someone has been saved without having received sacramental baptism (baptism of water). For Andrades cases where someone has been saved by baptism of blood or baptism of desire are “implicit” and hypothetical and therefore not visible for us in 2017 or not visible in general. Obviously, we know people who have been saved without sacramental baptism, from the Roman Martyrology:
Lionel: None of them were physically visible and so if there are no personally known cases there can be no exceptions to the dogma EENS as it was known to Fr. Leonard Feeney or St. Ignatius of Loyola and the missionaries of the 16th century.This is basic philosophical reasoning.

At Rome, the holy virgin and martyr Emerentiana. Being yet only a catechumen, she was stoned to death by the Gentiles, whilst praying at the tomb of St. Agnes, her foster-sister.
St. Victor is another case where someone has been saved without having received baptism of water:
At Braga, in Portugal, St. Victor, martyr, who although only a catechumen, refused to adore an idol, and confessed Jesus Christ with great constancy. After suffering many tortures, he was beheaded, and thus merited to be baptized in his own blood.
Lionel: They are in Heaven and are canonised saints. No one could say at that time that they were  in Heaven without the baptism of water and so contradicted the dogma EENS. 
St.Thomas Aquinas says that if there is a man in the forest in invincible ignorance who is to be saved, God would send a preacher to him.
St. Francis Xavier and many saints report that there were people who died and  who returned to life only so that they could be baptised with water.

A catechumen is someone who still learns the Faith and has not received baptism of water yet. Both St. Emerentiana and St. Victor died as catechumen and are listed in the Martyrology. One has also to consider that actual cases, or how Mr. Andrades would call them “explicit cases”, of baptism of blood or baptism of desire are not even needed. A Catholic simply has to profess that a person can be saved without having received baptism of water.
Lionel: St.Emerentiana from the past  cannot be an exception to all needing to be members of the Church for salvation in 2017. Someone in the past cannot be relevant or an exception to the dogma EENS in the present times.
Similarly St.Emerentiana was not an exception to the dogma EENS in her times. Since no one could say at that time that since she allegedly went to Heaven without the baptism of water, there could be someone living who would also be saved outside the Church and so there could be exceptions to the dogma EENS. This is irrational reasoning.
This was the false inference of the liberal theologians. They assumed invisible people in the past were living exceptions to the dogma EENS in the present times. The mistake was accepted by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and supported by the traditionalists and sedevacantists who have had their religious formation under him.
A person who is able to reason would think “If such cases happened back then, they could also happen today in 2017”. 
Lionel:They could happen now theoretically but to be an exception to the dogma EENS the case would have to be concrete. A possibility in the past cannot be a visible exception to the dogma EENS.A hypothetical case is not a concrete case. Even if there were 100 cases of the BOD in 2017 we would not know about them.So BOD in itself is irrelevant to the dogma EENS.

We know by the authority and the teachings of the Catholic Church, that these cases happened and can happen now. Andrades however claims that the Church canonised these Martyrs without knowing that they were so called cases of BOD (his abbreviation for “baptism of desire”) or BOB (“baptism of blood”) and therefore could only speculate whether these Martyrs died without sacramental baptism or not. This is obviously wrong because for example in the case of St. Victor the Church explicitly states in the Martyrology that he was “only a catechumen” who was “baptized in his own blood” so it was known that he has not received baptism of water.
Lionel: Even if he was a catechuman saved with the baptism of blood and without the baptism of water, let us say( for arguements sake) he still was an invisible case on earth. How can an invisible persone be relevant or an exception to EENS?. How can we postulate that someone in the present times will go to Heaven because we believe this or that saint in the past  is in Heaven without the baptism of water ? Where are the St. Victors and St.Emerentiana today? Who could know them even if they existed? No one. The liberal theologians made them relevant to the dogma and this was accepted by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger,as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,Vatican.

 Despite of this overwhelming facts he claims to know that these Martyrs have received baptism of water and also made up some theories of them even coming back to earth only to receive baptism of water, because as a Feeneyite (heretic) he rejects that baptism of desire and baptism of blood are substitutes for baptism of water and sufficient for salvation.
Lionel: I know that they have received the baptism of water since this is the dogmatic teaching of the Church.It is not just a personal view.It was St. Francis Xavier and other saints who observed that people returned from the dead only to be baptised. 

The Church however teaches that one can reach eternal salvation without having received baptism of water.
Lionel: This is said based on false theology created by mixing up what is invisible as being visible.This is the irrational philosophy and theology of the present magisterium of people, the Vatican Curia. It is a rupture with the magisterium of the 16th century. The Church today contradicts the Church of previous centuries.Today we have the phenomenon of magisterial heresy created by assuming invisible BOD is a visible exception to traditional EENS.Ghosts are practical exceptions to the dogma EENS.

Pope Innocent II. in the letter to the Bishop of Cremona:
To your inquiry we respond thus: We assert without hesitation (on the authority of the holy Fathers Augustine and Ambrose) that the priest whom you indicated (in your letter) had died without the water of baptism, because he persevered in the faith of holy mother the Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland. (D 388)
Lionel: It is hoped that he is in Heaven. It is speculated that he is in Heaven.Personally they do not  know.

Also Saint Thomas Aquinas teaches that baptism of desire is a substitute for baptism of water:
"Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for." (Summa Theologiae, 1,III, 68)
Lionel: This is acceptable speculation with good will. None of them are saying that they personally know  for sure any one is in Heaven who is there without the baptism of water.Since this knowledge would only be known to God.
St. Thomas Aquinas elsewhere affirms ' the strict interpretation' of the dogma EENS.
When we have friends and relatives who have died and who we know had been living in sin we hope that God would have forgiven them and we hope that they are now in Heaven.

These are just two examples but they should prove to everyone that these teachings do not come from liberal “theologians” like the Feeneyites claim, but are part of the depositum fidei, the deposit of the Catholic Faith and this should also show us that baptism of desire or baptism of blood is sufficient in order to be saved and does not have to be followed by baptism of water, which is another claim from Andrades, according to the teaching of the Church.
Lionel: The examples cited are people whom it is believed are in Heaven without the baptism of water.Assuming that this was true, it still is not an exception to the dogma EENS. Since even if it was a possibility in the past we cannot say there are any such concrete cases today. Since BOD, BOB and I.I are always unknown to us. If they exist they would only be known to God.

Andrades also claims that people who hold to the Catholic doctrine that baptism of blood and baptism of desire are substitutes for baptism of water are somehow denying the Dogma “No salvation outside the Church” or how he calls it EENS (abbreviation for the Latin phrase “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus”) because for him someone being saved without having received baptism of water is an exception to this Dogma. This is obvious nonsense. By receiving baptism of desire or baptism of blood one obtains membership to the Church. Therefore someone being saved in this extraordinary way is under no circumstances an exception of the Dogma “No salvation outside the Church”.
Lionel: There is no extra ordinary way of salvation for us human beings. This is the error of the New Theology, Cushngite theology. The ordinary way of salvation is the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.BOD, BOB and I.I are not the ordinary way. Practically speaking they are not even the extraordinary way. They are 'zero cases' in our reality, said the apologist John Martignoni.

Because Mr. Andrades apparently does not understand the issue he also does not understand the answers given to him. If one explains to him the problem he will continue with the same nonsense as if nothing happened.
Lionel: SB will not answer if LG 16 refers to an invisible or visible person in 2017. I persisted with this question. He still has not answered it here. 
Aside from him, this question must be a nightmare for the traditionalists and sedevacantists.

 He is also accusing those people who disagree with his heresy as “irrational” or even “heretical”. 
Lionel: What heresy ? I am affirming Vatican Council II without the irrational premise. I do not reject the Council as does  SB. I affirm EENS with no known exceptions. For SB there is only EENS with exceptions and this is a rupture with the  magisterium of the 16th century and St. Ignatius of Loyola whose feast day it is today.
I affirm the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1257, 845,846 ) without the irrational premise. SB rejects the Catechism.
I affirm BOD, BOB and I.I as being implicit and hypothetical. So I am not rejecting them. They can only be known as hypothetical cases, since they would exist in Heaven and be known personally only to  God. 
So I affirm magisterial documents without the irrational premise.
 I am not a sedevacantist or traditionalist like SB. They are heretical on EENS, Vatican Council II and the Nicene Creed ( I believe in one known baptism is changed to I believe in three or more baptisms and they exclude the baptism of water).
As Brother Andre Marie MICM, the Prior at the St. Bendict Center, Richmond N.H says, 'to be a Feeneyite is to be a Catholic'.It's the Feeneyites who have the real Catholic identity. The trads and sedes have lost it. Similarly for a college or university to be really Catholic it has to be Feeneyite. St.Ignatius of Loyola was a Feeneyite.

Obviously his “faith” is not based on the teachings of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church but rather on his false hermeneutic of the documents of the so called “Second Vatican Council”. We need to pray for his conversion.
Lionel: I affirm Vatican Council II while anonymous SB rejects the Council. For me Vatican Council II is in harmony with the dogma EENS and the Syllabus of Errors for him there was a rupture.For me there is no change in the pre and post Vatican Council II traditional ecclesiology of the Church. For him there is a rupture.
This is my faith.-Lionel Andrades

No comments: