Tuesday, August 1, 2017

Sedevacantists Ann Barnhardt and Eric Gajiewski are misreading St.Thomas Aquinas and so also Vatican Council II

There is a report on Gloria TV by Sanctus Bonifatius titled St.Thomas Acquinas (Catholic) or Lionel Andrades (Feeneyite) to which I have responded here 1.
The point I want to address here is that St.Thomas Aquinas was a Feeneyite since he affirmed the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).He referred to the desire for the baptism of water of someone who could not receive it.This was a hypothetical case for him.It is a hypothetical case for us. So if St. Thomas Aquinas or any one else refers to the baptism of desire, they are still Feeneyites, since the baptism of desire was always a hypothetical case and it never contradicted EENS.I am referring to EENS according to Fr.Leonard Feeney or for example the missionaries in the 16th century.
So when Sanctus Bonifatius(SB),who says he is not a sede, reads Aquinas, he reads the baptism of desire as referring to a visible case.It is someone personally known who has been saved outside the Church or without the baptism of water. When I read Aquinas I read the reference to the catechumen who desires the baptism of water before he die,s as a non-visible case. He is someone unknown.So it is the opposite for me.
For me Aquinas is a Feeneyite since he affirms the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS, according to the Church Councils, and his reference to speculative baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma EENS.Since baptism of desire itself is not an exception to EENS.
For SB, Eric Gajiewski or Ann Barnhardt the baptism of desire refers to an objective case in the present times and so it contradicts Feeneyism.This is the Cushingite way of looking at this issue.This is irrational.

This was how the liberal theologians in Baltimore and Boston re-interpreted St. Thomas Aquinas and it is wrongly being followed by the traditionalists and sedevacantists.Since this mistake was overlooked by Archbishop Lefebvre and the popes including the much respected Pius XII.
So now for SB, Eric Gajiewski and Ann Barnhardt Vatican Council II emerges as a break with the dogma EENS and the Syllabus of Errors which is based on the old ecclesiology of the Church. This should be expected. Since the problem lies not with Vatican Council II but with their irrational premise.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, LG 14, NA 2, GS 22 etc refer to visible cases for them.So Vatican Council II (LG etc) is a rupture with the dogma EENS. Since the Council (Cushinigite) is a rupture with EENS it is a break with the old ecclesiology of the Church which had its foundation in EENS. Since the old ecclesiology of the Church was gone and now there was allegedly known salvation outside the Church, there was an opening for the new ecumenism and the view that non Christians do not need to convert into the Church. So the Syllabus of Errors was put aside.
It all began with visible for us baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance-Lionel Andrades



No comments: