Sedevacantist Bishop Donald Sanborn's Anti Feeneyite Catechism has an objective error

Sedevacantist Bishop Donald Sanborn in an article on his website (Anti Feeneyite Catechism) wrongly assumes there are visible and known cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I). This error is being taught to the sedevacantist seminarians in Flordia.

Here is the introduction of his article.

In the late 1940’s, a certain Fr. Leonard Feeney, S.J., a priest functioning in the Archdiocese of Boston, published articles and books declaring that the Catholic Church

never taught the doctrine of baptism of blood and baptism of desire. Reacting to the nascent ecumenism and liberalism of Cardinal Cushing, he held that unless someone were baptized

with the baptism of water, he could not be saved. He and his followers also said that the Church’s doctrine, that outside the Church there is no salvation, means that those who do not externally belong to the Catholic Church are necessarily going to hell.

Lionel: Fr. Leonard Feeney was the editor and founder of the Jesuit magazine and was responsible for the conversion of many non Catholics, he was not ' a certain' Fr. Feeney.He was correct in as much the Catholic Church never taught that BOD, BOB or I.I referred to objective cases. This was the inference of the liberal Jesuits and other theologians in the USA. How can invisible for us baptism of desire, for example, be a visible exception to the dogma EENS.This is the irrational inference of Bishop Sanborn and his seminary.They are still slandering the priest from Boston.

_______________________________________

The Catholic Church never said or taught the doctrines of Fr. Feeney. The Catholic Church has universally taught and teaches that there is a baptism of blood and a baptism of desire, and that those who are invincibly ignorant of the truth of the Catholic Faith are not guilty of the personal sin of infidelity in their failure to embrace the Catholic Faith.

Lionel: Yes and this was a reference to a hypothetical case.St. Thomas Aquinas for example, no where says that the man in the forest saved in invincible ignorance referred to someone personally known who was saved outside the Church. This was wrongly inferred to by the theologians.The error was accepted by Pope Pius XII, Cardinal Ottaviani and Archbishop Lefebvre.

___________________________________________

Fr. Feeney’s error was condemned by the Holy Office in 1949, under the reign of Pius XII.

Fr. Feeney did not recant, but was excommunicated.

Lionel: The Holy Office wanted to him to say invisible cases of the baptism of desire were visible exceptions to the dogma EENS. He refused.They excommunicated him. He still refused to repeat their irrationality.

___________________________________________

He founded a community where his followers gathered around him, and his error was confined mostly to the eastern section of the State of Massachusetts. They are commonly referred to as “Feeneyites.”

Lionel: They were pejoratively referred to as 'Feeneyites' by the liberals and the SSPX.Fr.Peter Scott former Superior of the SSPX in the USA also appealed on the SSPX website to the check them at the SSPX chapels.In other words keep them out.

_____________________________________________

In the past few years, however, many traditional Catholics have espoused this condemned error as if it were a Catholic doctrine.

Lionel: They know that invisible for us baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma EENS. They are waiting for Bishop Sanborn also to formally announce it.

_____________________________________________

They falsely perceive the doctrine of baptism of desire and baptism of blood as a dilution of the Church’s true doctrine in preparation for the era of ecumenism.

Lionel: It was only with Bishop Sanborn's new doctrine on there being salvation outside the Church with known cases of BOD etc, that the new ecumenism was possible.The sedevacantists accepted the New Theology of Ratzinger and Rahner based on invisible people being visible.They did not know that this was the foundation of the new ecumenism, which they reject.

_____________________________________________

It should be noted that there are hardly any traditional priests who adhere to the doctrine of Fr. Feeney. It is a layman’s error, and it arises out of an ignorance of the Church’s true doctrine.

Lionel: Those who do so in public are threathened by the Left. The bishop of course has no such problem. He is in harmony with the political Left.He says that there are known exceptions to the dogma EENS and gets away with it.-Lionel Andrades