Wednesday, July 5, 2017

That the baptism of desire is invisible and not physically visible is a great secret of Cardinal Ladaria and others at the Vatican.For them this is very important information to hide

That the baptism of desire is invisible and not physically visible is a  great secret of Cardinal Ladaria and others at the Vatican.For them this is  very important information to hide.
Image result for PHOTOS KEEPING A SECRET
Presently every one is interpreting the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) as referring to known cases.So it is inferred that there are exceptions to Feeneyite EENS. This was the thinking in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which has been accepted by the magisterium.
But what if Cardinal Ladaria knows that BOD, BOB and I.I refer to invisible and not visible cases.
This would mean LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, GS 22 etc refer to hypothetical cases, theoretical cases. They are not objectively known in 2017.
It would then mean that there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
Nothing in Vatican Council to contradict EENS according to St. Robert Bellarmine and the missionaries of the 16th century ?
This would be shocking for the bishops' conferences in the USA, U.K, Germany, Italy,Australia etc.
It would mean that we are back to the old ecclesiology of the Church. This would be unacceptable for all of them.
This would be unthinkable over the last few months or even years.It's still unthinkable for some who are informed about it today.
So now Cardinal Luiz Ladaria is not going to announce,just as Cardinal Muller did not announce, the obvious.He will not proclaim that  there are only invisible cases of BOD, BOB and I.I. So there are no exceptions to the old ecclesiology based on Feeneyite EENS and expressed in the SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012.
So if Vatican Council II is now interpreted in harmony with Tradition and the SSPX General Chapter Statement,which supports Feeneyite EENS,  this would be a crisis for Cardinal Ladaria.It would be a crisis for Pope Benedict and all whom he represents.
The SSPX and the sedevacantists would now be in the driving seat. The Council would no more be an issue for them. They can affirm the Council without the irrationality.
So what does Cardinal Ladaria do in the face of so many reports on the Internet on this issue? He keeps quiet. He does not respond. It would be a disaster if Catholics understood that BOD, BOB and I.I refer to invisible cases.So they never ever were relevant to the dogma EENS as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century.
There is no development of the dogma EENS with Vatican Council II as Pope Benedict wrongly announced in March 2016 if the baptism of desire refers to invisible cases.
It is important that the SSPX religious and lay people understand this.The whole issue is hinged on invisible baptism of desire being mistaken for being visible.Then with this irrationality a rupture is created with Tradition.
Without the irrationality there is no rupture with Tradition.The SSPX can look at Vatican Council II in a new way.This is only possible if the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to invincible  ignorance.
All they have to know is that invisible BOD, BOB and I.I are simply invisible -and then announce it in public.-Lionel Andrades


JULY 5, 2017


To accomodate the error of visible baptism of desire Cardinal Ratzinger changed the Profession of Faith, Oath of Fidelity and Canon Law

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/07/to-accomodate-error-of-visible-baptism.html

DUE POSTI DISPONIBILE



To accomodate the error of visible baptism of desire Cardinal Ratzinger changed the Profession of Faith, Oath of Fidelity and Canon Law

FOR AND AGAINST BAPTISM OF DESIRE WHICH DOES NOT EXIST
All these years the traditionalists have been arguing for and against the baptism of desire being an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Brother Andre Marie MICM would present reasoning and theology which would show that the baptism of desire was not an exception to the dogma EENS.
Image result for photos of aNGELUS pRESS
While Fr.Francois Laisney of the SSPX would show that it is an exception.Angelus Press of the SSPX has  been selling a book 'Is Feeneyite Catholic?' which says BOD is an exception to EENS and Fr,.Leonard Feeney did not know this.
I have been writing that there are no cases of baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I).There are no physical cases in our reality.There is no one known in the present times who has been saved as such.
No one seems to understand.
Image result for photos of group discussions
They go back to fighting about BOD,BOB and I.I-for and against.
'So what if there are no cases in our reality ?,' they ask.
But if there are no such cases in our reality how can you discuss them in general as exceptions to EENS? 
No you cannot discuss them as exceptions to EENS. This was a set up from the very beginning. The ecclesiastics let down the Church.
Image result for photos of cARDINAL rATZINGER WITH fR.rAHNER KEEPING IT A SECRET
If they knew that BOD was theoretical, hypothetical, invisible and not known in personal cases then the interpretation of Vatican Council II would change.Could they tell this to all of us?
Image result for photos of Cardinal Ladaria with cardinal Muller
So if Cardinal Ratzinger knew it he did not tell it to Archbishop Lefebvre.
If Cardinal Ladaria knows it he is not telling it to any one.
He did not know it during the talks with the SSPX led by Fr. Jean Marie Gleize. What if he had let the SSPX in on the secret?.
The talks would have changed.He would have been on the receiving end.
The SSPX would say that they accept Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) and demand canonical status.They would also say that they support the rigorist interpretation of EENS in harmony with Vatican Council II.So there is no change in ecumenism and no contradiction with the Syllabus of Errors. This would be too much for the Left.
Image result for PHOTOS KEEPING A SECRET
CARD.LADARIA DOES  NOT TELL ANY ONE ABOUT THEORETICAL BOD
This would be unacceptable to the political Left, the Masons and the liberals.
So Cardinal Ladaria does tell any one that BOD, BOB and I.I refer to only theoretical cases.
No one at the Vatican comments on what I write on this blog.
Like Pope Benedict ,Ladraia, Muller, Di Noia, Pozzo and the others lets every one believe that these are known cases saved outside the Church who are  exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.
This is a falsehood.

TO ACCOMODATE THE ERROR PROFESION OF FAITH AND CANON LAW CHANGED.
To accomodate this error Cardinal Ratzinger has changed the Profession of Faith, Oath of Fidelity and Canon Law.
But inspite of it all truth has its own way of re-surfacing.
Now even the school boy can reason it out.BOD is not an exception to EENS since there are no BOD cases known to us.The popes and cardinals made a mistake.
The ecclesiastics and liberal theologians made a mistake. Their house of theological reasoning was based on a false premise and now it has been exposed.
So what do they do? They simply keep quiet. They make sure that there are no discussions or conferences on EENS.Otherwise every thing will be exposed.
They threathen people.
Image result for photos of EDWARD PENTINImage result for photos of cHRISTINE nILES
Edward Pentin refuses to ask questions on EENS again.
Christine Niles is reluctant to do another program on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Robert Sungenis is called Anti Semitic.
Catholics now and in future must stop discussing the characteristics of BOD etc.It is useless to ask if someone believes in BOD or not.
So what if one believes that BOD must be followed by the baptism of water and another says no this is not true ? Either way BOD has nothing to do with EENS since there are no BOD cases which are practical exceptions.
So if a pope or cardinal infers that BOD is an exception to EENS you tell him his inference is wrong.Even popes make mistakes.-Lionel Andrades

When will the SSPX and the St.Benedict Centers simply say that there are no baptism of desire cases in our reality ?




Comments on a Rorate Caeili report in 2012
In the comments section a supporter of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the SSPX presents his theology for the baptism of desire being an exception to the dogma EENS. While Brother Andre Marie MICM, presently Prior at the St. Benedict Center, Manchester,USA, a community of Fr. Leonard Feeney, supports the baptism of desire not being an exception to the dogma EENS.He cites articles on the website Catholicism.org
 Finally it is one theology against another and their is no conclusion.Both groups think they are correct.The liberals and the magisterium would join the SSPX group.
Neither of the two of them have said that there are no physically known cases of the baptism of desire and so it cannot be an exception or relevant to the dogma EENS.
This is something objective and factual and it is not theology.
There are no cases of the baptism of desire and they are both discussing it for and against.
The SSPX supporter says:
On the other hand, I present you a short list of those important documents, theologians, bishops and doctors that explicitly affirmed the threefold Baptism (most of the quotes are found in the article mentioned in my last comment, if you wish, I can send you the others by mail):

St. Cyprian BM, Tertullian, St. Cyril of Jerusalem BCD, St. John Chrysostome BCD, St. Ambrose BCD, St. Augustine BCD, St. Thomas Aquinas CD, St. Catherine of Sienna V, Ecumenical Council of Trent, Catechism of the Council of Trent, St. Alphonsus Liguori BCD, Pope Pius IX, Baltimore Cathechism (19th century), The Cathechism Explained (1899), Cathechism of Pope St. Pius X, Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), Code of Canon Law (1917), Catholic Dictionary (1946), Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office (1949), mons. Joseph Fenton (1952), Archbishop Lefebvre FSSPX, Fr. Schmidberger FSSPX, Bishop Fellay FSSPX...

Brother Andre Marie had simply to point out that the long list of baptism of desire references, are meaningless. Since they do not exist in our reality. So they could not be relevant or exceptions to the dogma EENS.
St. Cyprian BM, Tertullian, St. Cyril of Jerusalem BCD, St. John Chrysostome BCD, St. Ambrose BCD, St. Augustine BCD, St. Thomas Aquinas CD, St. Catherine of Sienna V, Ecumenical Council of Trent, Catechism of the Council of Trent, St. Alphonsus Liguori BCD, Pope Pius IX...do not state that the baptism of desire refers to known cases and so is an exception to EENS. 
Here they are discussing the baptism of desire, for and against, when there are no such cases in our reality.
Ecclesia Militans said...
Brother André Marie,

Thank you very much, and I congratulate you on your envious and honorable status as a "radical traditionalist".


But I have a question, if you don't mind. I would be interested to know how the supporters of Father Feeney can explain their resistance to the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium in the matters of Baptism of Blood and the explicit and implicit Baptism of Desire, as expressed by numerous bishops, doctors and theologians, from the third century onward, including an ecumenical council, and all the pre-conciliar popes since - and including - Pius IX?

It is, after all, a part of Catholic Tradition, and an infallible one at that.

This article contains many of those quotes, I have others too:
www.rosarychapel.net/threefoldbaptism.php

Also, to mention praxis, do you reckognize Saint Emerentiana and the Forty Martyrs of Sebaste, martyred in the 3rd century, as Catholic saints, since they are examples of both Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood?
Brother André Marie, M.I.C.M. said...
Ecclesia Militans,

I refer you to the following postings on our site:




Hopefully, the links I put up will work. I'm never fully confident posting HTML code in a comment box.
Ecclesia Militans said...
Brother André Marie,

I've studied the articles and I must say that they do not make a convincing argument against the threefold Baptism.


Other than quoting the many various forms of the dogma extra Ecclesiam nulla salus and discussions and speculations on St. Augustine's view, there are only two or three marginal quotes by doctors that speak againstthe threefold Baptism.

As for St. Emerentiana, I see that Fr. Feeney decided to deny Tradition by saying she must have been baptised in water before martyrdom, although she has always been counted as an unbaptized cathecumen who died for Christ and received the Baptism of Blood.

On the other hand, I present you a short list of those important documents, theologians, bishops and doctors that explicitly affirmed the threefold Baptism (most of the quotes are found in the article mentioned in my last comment, if you wish, I can send you the others by mail):

St. Cyprian BM, Tertullian, St. Cyril of Jerusalem BCD, St. John Chrysostome BCD, St. Ambrose BCD, St. Augustine BCD, St. Thomas Aquinas CD, St. Catherine of Sienna V, Ecumenical Council of Trent, Catechism of the Council of Trent, St. Alphonsus Liguori BCD, Pope Pius IX, Baltimore Cathechism (19th century), The Cathechism Explained (1899), Cathechism of Pope St. Pius X, Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), Code of Canon Law (1917), Catholic Dictionary (1946), Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office (1949), mons. Joseph Fenton (1952), Archbishop Lefebvre FSSPX, Fr. Schmidberger FSSPX, Bishop Fellay FSSPX...

The inescapable conclusion is that the doctrine of Fr. Feeney denies or contradicts the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium as expressed through the above teachings of the said theologians, doctors etc.

It even goes against the Code of Canon Law which was valid at the time (canons 737 & 1239).

I hope you can see that to assert that so many theologians, doctors, popes and Church documents were in error for so many centuries is to deny the indefectibility of the Church.

St. Alphonsus Liguori calls the baptism of desire de fide, and St. Cyprian BM, back in the 3rd century, seems to call those who do not believe in the Baptism of Blood of the cathecumens "aiders and favourers of heretics".

Finally a short and precise quote:
"Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control.“

Pope Pius IX, SINGULARI QUIDEM

http://www.ewtn.com/library/encyc/p9singul.htm
Catholic Mission said...
Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Bishop Fellay, Fr.Schmidberger,FSSP,Joseph Fenton seem unaware the baptism of desire is not an explicit exception to the dogma 

Ecclesia Militans said... 
Brother André Marie,
I've studied the articles and I must say that they do not make a convincing argument against the threefold Baptism.

Lionel:
it is important to note that there is only one baptism which is explicit. It is the baptism of water.

Ecclesia Militans 
Other than quoting the many various forms of the dogma extra Ecclesiam nulla salus and discussions and speculations on St. Augustine's view, there are only two or three marginal quotes by doctors that speak against the threefold Baptism.

Lionel: 
We can only accept the baptism of desire and martrydom in pinciple. Explicitly we do not know any case, we cannot judge.If the Church declares someone a martyr we accept it.
CONTINUED
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/bishop-fellay-frschmidbergerfsspjoseph.html