Monday, March 27, 2017

The problem is not Vatican Council II or the Council of Trent but their interpretation with an irrational theology, Cushingite theology.

Sorry Lionel,  
  You said: " 

MARCH 27, 2017

Council of Trent can be interpreted with 

Feeneyism or Cushingism
1. COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1563)
Canons on the Sacraments in General (Canon 4):
“If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law 

are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that
 although all are not necessary for every individual, without 
them or without the desire of them (sine eis aut eorum voto),
 through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of 
justiflcation; let him be anathema.”
Lionel: This passage affirms the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
It is Feeneyite.
  Father Feeney was wrong. He never referred to this canon.
Lionel: Which canon are you referring to? 
The Council of Trent is Feeneyite.It is 
you, the SSPX and the sedevacantists
 who interpret it with Cushingism.The 
problem is not Vatican Council II or 
the Council of Trent but your 
interpretation of it with an irrational 
theology, Cushingite theology.

From article at SSPX:
Lionel: The following is a Cushingite 
article.It accepts the Letter of the 
Holy Office 1949 which states every
 one does not need to be 
incorporated into the Church as
 a member. It assumes invisible 
baptism of desire is visible without
 the baptism of water.

Fr. Feeney and Catholic
A reissue of the article appearing in Verbum, No. 24 (1986),

 prefaced  by the previous Editorial, clarifying the teaching
of the Church  regarding Baptism

Many of our friends have heard of Fr. Leonard Feeney, and some
 of them have a great esteem for this priest who fought 
against the liberal ecumenism by recalling again and again that
 outside the Church there is no salvation. But, to make his point,
 Fr. Feeney went so far as to exclude Baptism of desire (and 
martyrdom) from the means of salvation.
Lionel: He did not exclude the 
baptism of desire being followed 
by the baptism of water. The 
desire would have the justification.
 With the water there would be salvation.

 His teaching was then condemned by the Holy Office in
 1949, and he himself was excommunicated in 1953.
Lionel: The Holy Office and the Archbishop
 of Boston were using the new Cushingite
 theology based on the irrational premise,
of being able to see visible cases saved
 in Heaven without the baptism of
 water and with the baptism of desire.
 This was irrational and an innovation
 in the Church.It was heresy.It
rejected the dogma on salvation
 as it was interpreted over the

 It should be sufficient to recall that this happened under
the pontificate of the saintly Pope Pius XII, and that the
letter of the Holy Office was signed by Cardinal Ottaviani,
 who was not a liberal either. However, certain good Catholics
 still try to exculpate Fr. Feeney by saying that the Holy
 See was misinformed, etc.
Lionel: They assumed unknown
 people were known.They
assumed invisible cases were
visible.They assumed every one
 did not need to be in incorporated
 into the Church when there
 were no practical exceptions in

Well, we have just to open his book The Bread of Life
 (first published in 1952), to see that his doctrine
 contradicts the Church’s teaching.
Lionel. It contradicts Cushingism
 which is the new teaching of the
Church and it still is the official

 Let St. Thomas Aquinas, the greatest theologian the Church
 has ever known, be the witness for the prosecution. His 
Summa Theologica [ST] is the reference book that all
 seminarians (Fr. Feeney not excepted) had to study
according to the directives of St. Pius X and the 1917
Code of Canon Law.
Lionel: He can be interpreted
with Feeneyism ( there are no
 known exceptions to the
dogma EENS and the baptism
 of desire is invisible and
not an exception) or Cushingism
 ( there are known exceptions
 to the dogma EENS, and
visible for us baptism of desire
 excludes the baptism of water)
.I choose Feeneyism.

Original Sin, Sacramental Character, and

It seems that the fundamental error of Fr. Feeney is that,
according to him, original sin is wiped away ONLY by
 the character imprinted on the soul by Baptism:
Lionel: This is the traditional
de fide teaching of the Church.
 The baptism of water is a
 Sacrament. It can be
administered and it is visible.
The Baptism of desire is not a
Let us suppose an act of perfect love has occurr
ed in man’s soul. Can this man be said to be freed from 
original sin by this perfect act of love of God? He cannot,
in the true and full sense. There has not been imprinted
on his soul, by reason of this perfect act of love of God,
the character which Baptism imprints, to seal him as
redeemed and outfit him for the resurrection of the
body and life everlasting. (Bread of Life, ch.V, p.98)
Lionel: He refers to a hypothetical
 case.The ordinary means of salvation
 is the baptism of water in the
Catholic Church.
If theoretically there is a man saved
with perfect charity ot would be
 known only to God.However this
is speculation for us.Practically it
would be with the baptism of
water and Catholic faith.

Fr. Feeney does not deny that sanctifying grace can
 be obtained by an act of perfect charity, but he says
it is not enough to be saved; according to him,
just as nobody can become a priest without receiving
 the character of Holy Orders, so nobody can be
 saved without receiving the character of Baptism.
 Thus, since Baptism of desire and martyrdom do
not imprint this character on the soul, they cannot
save anyone!
Lionel: They can justify one for
 receiving the baptism of water
 with which there is salvation.
 St.Thomas Aquinas mentioned
 the man in the forest in invincible
 ignorance who was to be saved.
 The man could have had
justification and now for salvation
 God would send a preacher to him,
as St. Thomas said, to instruct
him in the Faith.So when he is in
 Heaven he would be a
Catholic with 'faith and baptism'.

 The flaw of his reasoning appears when we ask what
happens to the souls in the state of grace who die
without Baptism. He is at a loss to try to explain it;
these souls are not saved, but he is obliged to say
that they are not lost either!
Where do these souls go...? I do not know.
(Bread of Life, ch.VII, p.137)
Lionel: Precisely. They would
 only be known to God.

Now, the teaching of the Church is that original sin
 is blotted out by sanctifying grace, which is the only
necessary title to be admitted to see God. To understand
that, let us ask the help of St. Thomas. He explains:
 The sacramental character is "a certain spiritual power
ordained unto things pertaining to the divine worship," 
a consecration by which the soul is marked so that
it may receive the sacraments (baptismal character),
 or bestow them on others (priestly character),
 "a certain participation in Christ’s priesthood" (ST, 
IIIa, Q. 63).

Sanctifying grace is "a participation in the divine
 nature" (cf. II Pet. 1:4) whereby man is united
 to God and "adopted as His son to whom the
inheritance is due by right of adoption, according
 to Rom. 8:17: ‘if sons, heirs also’" (ST, Ia IIae,
 Q. 110, 111, 114). Thus, with these words of
the Angelic Doctor, we can understand why
the Council of Trent declares that original sin
 is washed away, not by the character, but by
the grace of Baptism:
If anyone denies that by the grace of our
Lord Jesus Christ which is conferred in
 Baptism the guilt of original sin is remitted..
. let him be anathema!1
Indeed, it is grace, not the sacramental
 character, which is the remedy against sin:
Man is sanctified by each of the
sacraments, since sanctity means immunity
from sin, which is the effect of grace. But in
 a special way some sacraments, which imprint
 a character, bestow on man a certain
consecration, thus deputing him to the
 divine worship. (ST, IIIa, Q. 63)
Here is the crux of the matter, for,
although no sacramental character
 can be conferred without a sacrament,
 sanctifying grace can be given outside
the sacraments:
The divine power is not confined to
the sacraments. Hence man can receive
spiritual strength to confess the Faith
of Christ publicly without receiving the
 sacrament of Confirmation just as he
can also receive remission of sins without
 Baptism. (ST, IIIa, Q. 72).
Lionel: He cannot receive
the remission of sins without
 the baptism of water otherwise
 this would contradict the
Nicene Creed( I believe
 in one baptism for the
 forgiveness of sins, there
 is only one known baptism
 it is the baptism of water),
 the Athanasius Creed
( Outside the Church there
is no salvation), the thrice
 defined dogma on extra
 ecclesiam nulla salus
( Cantate Domino, Council of
Florence) etc.
Visibly for those who know him,
  there could be a catechuman
 who desires the baptism of
water in the Catholic Church
but dies before he is administered
 it.He could receive the baptism
 of water after death, the saints
 tell us, and then be saved, his
 sins could be remitted if God
choses.In general, the baptism
 of water in needed for the
remission of original sin.
 Above in (ST, IIIa, Q. 72) St.
Thomas Aquinas is referring to
 some hypothetical possibility
known only to God.

And thus we arrive at the question of Baptism of desire...

"Three Baptisms"?

In his book (ch.VII), Fr. Feeney suggests that Cardinal
Gibbons invented the "heresy" of the three kinds of
 Baptism taught by the Baltimore Catechism. But,
 long before the "opportunist" Cardinal
Lionel: The Baltimore Catechism
placed the desire of a
hypothetical and unknown catechumen
 in the baptism section of the
Catechism, where it was referred
 to as the baptism of desire.This
 was confusion.The liberal
theologians in Boston in 1949
 used the confusion to create
 a new theology and

, St. Thomas spoke of these three kinds of Baptism,
Baptism of water has its efficacy from Christ’s
Passion, to which a man is conformed by Baptism,
and also from the Holy Ghost as first cause. Now,
although the effect depends on the first cause, the
 cause far surpasses the effect, nor does it depend
on it.... Consequently, a man may, without Baptism
 of water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ’s
 Passion, insofar as he is conformed to Christ by
 suffering for Him (i.e., martyrdom). Hence it is
written: These are they who are come out of great
 tribulation, and have washed their robes and have
 made them white in the Blood of the Lamb. (Apoc. 7:14)
Lionel: There is only one known
and visible baptism. It is the
baptism of water. The
Baltimore Catechism was wrong
 to place the desire for the
baptism in the baptism section
of the Catechism, as if this
 was also a practical
baptism which could be administered
like the baptism of water.
The baptism of desire is a
 grace of God and is not
visible. For us, as in St.
Thomas Aquinas' reflection
 above, it is always  hypothetical.

In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by
 the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism
of water, but also without Baptism of blood: for as much
as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in
and love God and to repent of his sins.
Wherefore this is also called Baptism of repentance...
.Thus, therefore, each of these other Baptisms is called
 Baptism forasmuch as it takes the place of Baptism"
 (ST, IIIa, Q. 66).
Lionel: Yes but the bottom
line is that these are invisible
cases for us and so they
cannot be exceptions or
relevant to the Feeneyite
interpretation of the dogma

 And St. Thomas quotes St. Augustine (who died
in 430) himself relying on the teaching of St. Cyprian
 (who died in 258).
However, Fr. Feeney tries to make us believe that the
 Fathers of the Church are on his side, and for this
purpose he is obliged to interpret the sermon of St.
 Ambrose (died 397) quoted by the Catholic Encyclopedia
 concerning Baptism of desire (cf. Bread of Life,
ch.VII, p.123). But Fr. Feeney’s interpretation
does not stand the reading of the complete text:
But I hear that you grieve because he did not
receive the sacrament of Baptism. Tell me now,
what else is in us, if not will, if not desire? He,
in very truth had this wish that, before he came
to Italy, he should be initiated into the Church,
 and he indicated that he wanted to be baptized
 by me very soon, and that is why he thought I
 had to be called before everything else. Did he
not obtain the grace which he desired? Did he
not obtain what he asked for? Certainly, because
 he asked for it, he obtained it. "But the just man,
 if he be prevented by death, shall be in rest"
(Wisd. 4:7).... But if people are absolved in their
 own blood, then this man’s piety and desire
absolved him. (De Obitu Valentiniani, 51-53).
Clearly, according to St. Ambrose, the desire
of Baptism, like martyrdom, replaces Baptism
of water.
Lionel: Hypothetically only.
It is not a practical exception
 to EENS.
 It is also the teaching of the last of the Fathers,
St. Bernard (died 1153), who recalls that with
 God the intention counts as the act when the
 act is excluded by necessity (cf. De Baptismo, II, 7). 
Lionel: A hypothetical
case.Speculation with
good will.It is irrelevant
 to Feeneyite EENS.

Finally, let us mention the case of the Jew
who, at the point of death, baptized himself
 since he lived among Jews and could not get
 anyone to do it. Pope Innocent III (died 1216)
 says that this Baptism is not valid and that he
should be baptized by another.
If however, such a one had died immediately,
 he would have rushed to the heavenly home
 without delay because of the faith of the
sacrament although not because of the
 sacrament of Faith.2
Lionel : Again a hypothetical
 case.Invisible cases in 2017
 for example cannot be
exception to the dogma
EENS.Also in 1216 or some
 other year, no one saw
this Jew in Heaven without
 the baptism of water.So
 it remains a theoretical issue.
Without an actual, known
 case saved in Heaven without
 the baptism of water it cannot
be said that there is salvation
 outside the Church.
If any one says there is salvation
 outside the Church I would ask
 for the name of the person
 saved outside the Church.
This is something only God
 would know. For us humans
there are no such cases
saved outside the Church.


Against this doctrine of the three kinds of Baptism,
Fr. Feeney brings up the words of St. Paul: "One Lord,
 one faith, one Baptism" (Eph. 4:5). But this
objection has already been answered by St. Thomas:
The other two Baptisms are included in the
Baptism of water, which derives its efficacy
 both from Christ’s Passion and from the Holy
 Ghost. Consequently, for this reason the unity
of Baptism is not destroyed. (ibid)
Lionel: Agreed. The other
 two baptisms would be
followed by the baptism
of water in a manner
known only to God.

In other words, Baptism of desire and Baptism
 of blood are called "Baptisms" only analogically,
 inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of
the sacrament of Baptism, namely the grace that
remits sins.
Lionel: They are still unknown
 to us in personal cases and
 so are irrelevant to the dogma
 EENS. So the Letter of the
Holy Office 1949 made a mistake.
Fr. Feeney raised another objection, this time from
the words of our Blessed Lord: "Unless a man be
born again of water and of the Holy Ghost, he
cannot enter the Kingdom of God" (Jn. 3:5).
Likewise, St. Thomas had not waited for Fr. Feeney
 to answer:
As it is written: "man seeth those things
that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart"
 (I Kings 16:7). Now, a man who desires to be
 "born again of water and of the Holy Ghost" by
 Baptism is regenerated in heart though not in
body.... The sacrament of Baptism is said to be
 necessary for salvation insofar as man cannot
 be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire,
 "which, with God, counts for the deed" (St.
Augustine). (Summa Theologica, Part IIIa, Q. 68)
 Lionel: This passage agrees
with Fr. Leonard Feeney
 and the traditional interpretation
 of the dogma EENS. 'The
sacrament of Baptism is
said to be necessary for
salvation insofar as man
cannot be saved without,
 at least, Baptism of desire,
 "which, with God, counts
 for the deed". The Sacrment
of baptism follows the baptism
 of desire and blood. We do
not exclude the baptism of
 desire and blood from the
 baptism of water and its effects.

Any Kind of Desire?

Fr. Feeney thunders against "the heretical theology
that turned Baptism of water into any dry desire
one might have in the general direction of heaven" 
(cf. Bread of Life, ch. VII, p.117). But we do not
claim that "any dry desire" is sufficient, not even
a firm resolution to be baptized.
Lionel: Any desire is irrelevant to the
 dogma extra  ecclesiam nulla salus.
This is the point missed out by the
SSPX bishops and priests and also the
sedevacantists influenced by
Archbishop Lefebvre.

St. Thomas explains:
(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. (Summa Theologica,
 Part IIIa, Q. 68)More precisely, in the letter
condemning the teaching of Fr. Feeney, the Holy
Office declares:
But it must not be thought that any kind of desire
of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved.
 It is necessary that the desire by which one is related
 to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor
can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a
 person has supernatural faith: "For he who comes
to God must believe that God exists and is a
rewarder of those who seek Him!" (Heb. 11:6).
 (August 8, 1949, to the Archbishop of Boston)
Lionel: However the Letter
says not every one needs
 to be incorporated into the
 Church as a member for
salvation. This contradicts
 St. Thomas Aquinas, the
saints and popes and
the Church Councils. It
contradicts Vatican Council II,
 which says all need faith
and baptism for salvation
 (AG 7). Cushingism is a
rupture with Tradition.

In other words, someone not baptized cannot be
 saved without an act of perfect charity including,
at least implicitly, the will to do all things necessary
 for salvation (and thus to receive Baptism). Our
Lord Himself tells us that true charity remits sins
and obtains His friendship:
He that loves Me shall be loved of My Father and
 I will love him... and We will come to him and
 will make Our abode with him (Jn. 14:21-23),
 Many sins are forgiven her (Mary Magdalen)
because she has loved much. (Lk. 7:47)
These last words of our Lord to the repentant
 sinner are echoed by the teaching of
the Council of Trent: contrition perfected by
 charity reconciles man to God.3
Lionel: We do not know any
one saved with perfect
charity and without the
baptism of water in the
 Catholic Church.

Now, Fr. Feeney rightly points out that it is not
at all easy to make a perfect act of charity and
to remain in the state of grace without the help
of the sacraments:
How a man knows he has made a perfect act
of love of God, I do not know!... Without the
sacraments, we cannot determine for certain
what is the value of our private acts. It is
by way of discouraging this sanctificational
 self-sufficiency, that the inspired writer
of the Book of Ecclesiastes was led to say:
 "man knoweth not whether he be worthy of
 love or hatred" (Eccl. 9:1).... Actually, no one
 who has not been baptized can stay in the
 state of Christian justification very long,
because he does not have the sacramental
 helps to keep justification alive.... If we who
are Catholics have a hard enough job to
keep in the state of sanctifying grace, with
all the prayers and sacramental helps we
have, good God!, how is anyone without
them going to stay in the state of a
perfect act of love of God? (cf. Bread of
Life, ch. VII, p.125,121).
But, by saying that it is practically impossible,
Fr. Feeney goes too far and wrongs God’s power
 (which is not limited to His sacraments), God’s
mercy (which desires the salvation of all men,
 [I Tim. 2:4]), and God’s justice (no one is
condemned if not guilty through his own fault).
Lionel: There is no known
 case of someone saved with
 perfect charity, I repeat, and
 without the Sacrament of
 the baptism of water.This
 is not an exception to the
 general rule.So every one
needs to be incorporated
 into the Church as a
member for salvation. The
 Letter of the Holy Office 1949,
accepted by the SSPX here on
 their official website,  is an
example of magisterial heresy
 approved by the popes and


Let us finally quote the letter of the Holy Office
 condemning Fr. Feeney’s teaching:
That one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not
 always required that he
be incorporated into the
Church actually as a
member, but it is necessary that at least
 he be united to her by desire and longing. However,
 this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in
catechumens; but when a person is involved in
invincible ignorance, God accepts also an implicit
 desire, so called because it is included in that
good disposition of soul whereby a person wants
 his will to be conformed to the Will of God. These
things are clearly taught in the dogmatic letter
 which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope
 Pius XII, on June 29, 1943 (Mystici Corporis)...
 he mentions those who are related to the
Mystical Body of the Redeemer "by a certain
unconscious yearning and desire," and these he
 by no means excludes from eternal salvation; but
 on the other hand, he states that they are in a
condition "in which they cannot be sure of their
salvation" since "they still remain deprived of those
many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be
enjoyed in the Catholic Church!" With these wise words
 he reproves both those who exclude from salvation
 all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and
 those who falsely assert that men can be saved
equally as well in every religion. (Letter to
 the Archbishop of Boston, August 8, 1949).
(Emphasis added)
Lionel:  'it is not always required
 that he be incorporated into
the Church actually as a
member',why? Are there
 known exceptions to the 
 exclusivist theology of the
 Church? Yes of course, for
the magisterium at that
time, this was the heretical
 inference of the Letter of
 the Holy Office 1949.
-Lionel Andrades
1. Cc. Trid.: sessio V. Decretum de peccato originali, Dz 1515.
2. Debitum officii pontificalis, August 28,1206; Dz 788.
3. Cc. Trid.: sessio XIV, cap. IV; Dz 1678.