It is important to affirm EENS and BOD and not choose one or the other.

I accept the baptism of desire(BOD) and extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).I am not like the traditionalists, liberals and sedevacantists for whom it is either BOD or EENS(Feeneyite).

Since BOD refers to invisible cases for me it is BOD with EENS. I can have it both ways.The liberals, traditionalists and sedevacantists do not comprehend this.

They, like Pope Francis and Pope Benedict, have made a doctrinal error. Since for all of them it is BOD or EENS and BOD is an exception to EENS.Of course,Vatican Council II has to emerge as a rupture with Tradition for all of them, it would become a rupture with EENS(Feeneyite).This is because they consider Fr. Leonard Feeney in heresy and not Cardinal Cushing and the Holy Office (CDF) in 1949.They consider the baptism of desire a visible case. It is a visible and known example of salvation outside the Church. So Fr. Leonard Feeney is wrong for them and Cardinal Cushing was correct.This was always the position of the Jewish Left media in Boston.

The writings of Archbishop Lefebvre and Cardinal Ratzinger are now obsolete.Since for both of them, liberal and traditionalist, it was BOD or EENS.

The traditionalists and liberals use the new theology based on invisible BOD,BOB and I.I being visible exceptions to EENS. So they have had to choose between BOD and Feeneyism.


The liberals and traditionalists reject Feeneyism, which says invisible BOD,BOB and I.I are not visible exceptions to EENS.This was rational but it was not magisterial for Pope Pius XII.Feeneyism, the traditional interpretation of the dogma (without hypothetical cases being concrete and objections to EENS) was also not supported by the liberals Rahner, Ratzinger, Congar,Kung and others.

These liberal theologians faked it.They inferred with no theological basis, that BOD etc referred to known people saved outside the Church.The popes and saints did not state that there were known cases of BOD, BOB and I.I but the liberal theologians made the inference to get rid of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.

It is common sense that BOD, BOB and I.I have to refer to invisible people. They can only be a reference to hypothetical cases.This is something obvious.

But the liberals inferred that there were known people saved outside the Church and this was accepted by Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops.This is the understanding today for the sedevacantists Bishop Mark Pivarunas, Superior General of the large CMRI sedevacantist community,Bishop Donald Donald Sanborn, Rector of sedevantist, Most Holy Trinity Florida, Fr.Antony Cekada, who is on the faculty of the Florida seminary  and Peter and Michael Dimond who maintain the Most Holy Family Monastery of Peter and Michael Dimond.

For them it is either BOD or EENS.

For me it is not either BOD or EENS.

For the two popes it is either BOD or EENS. So Vatican Council II becomes a rupture with Tradition.This is how Massimo Faggioli and Michael Sean Winters interpret Vatican Council II.So they have to reject Tradition and the old ecclesiology.They are supported by Pope Benedict in this  hermeneutic of rupture with the past.He was one of the fathers of this hermeneutic of rupture.

For me Vatican Council II is not a rupture with Tradition. Since LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, GS 22 refer to only speculative and hypothetical cases.

This was not known to the Council Fathers and so they made a mistake  at Vatican Council II. They should not have mentioned BOD, BOB and I.I directly or indirectly, in the Council II texts.These are now superflous references with respect to EENS.Since BOD, BOB and I.I are references to only hypothetical and non existing people, they cannot be exceptions, for example, to Ad Gentes 7 which states all need faith and baptism for salvation.Yet in Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 along with the passage which says all need faith and baptism, there is an accompanying passage which mentions BOD and I.I(LG 14 and LG 16).So in principle, this was a mistake in Vatican Council II.

Similarly when LG 14 suggests only those who know about Jesus and the Church and who did not enter do not enter are on the way to Hell, it was a mistake.



This is because the Council Fathers wrongly assumed that there were known cases of people, saved outside the Church, in invincible ignorance. So for them every one did not need to enter the Church for salvation but only those who were not in invincible ignorance, those who knew about Jesus and the Church.

In spite of this error, we can be aware that  those who know or do not know, and are saved or not saved,  are known only to God. They cannot be known to us in personal cases.So they never were exceptions to Feeneyite EENS and the dogma EENS as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century.So LG 14 does not contradict Ad Gentes 7 (all need faith and baptism for salvation).

It is important to affirm EENS and BOD and not choose one or the other.BOD and the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS. BOD and the past  exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.-Lionel Andrades