eucharistandmission: The reality remains: invisible BOD,BOB and I.I cannot be visible exceptions to the dogma EENS. However they are exceptions for Catholic Apologetics and Father Francois Laisney(SSPX)

Friday, February 16, 2018

The reality remains: invisible BOD,BOB and I.I cannot be visible exceptions to the dogma EENS. However they are exceptions for Catholic Apologetics and Father Francois Laisney(SSPX)

From the Catholic Apologetics website

VARIOUS ERRORS OF FATHER FEENEY

1* The misinterpretation of the text Jn.3: 5 i.e. it must be absolutely interpreted literally so that one must receive Baptism of water in order to win eternal life.

Lionel: Yes it must be interpreted literally according to Feeneyism by Lionel Andrades since there are no known exceptions.The baptism of desire(BOD),baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) are not visible and known in personal cases in 2018.Neither were they physically visible to the people in the past.Invisible people cannot be visible exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) in the present times.

__________________________

Refutation: His interpretation contradicts the Church’s official interpretation of the passage

Lionel : Yes the Church's official interpretation since Pope Pius XII is based on irrational and non traditional Cushingism.So now we have extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Feeneyite and Cushingite.

Similarly we have Vatican Council II Cushingite and Vatican Council II Feeneyite.

Then there sadly is a Nicene Creed Cushingite and the traditional Nicene Creed Feeneyite.

The apologists at Catholic Apologetics, including their founder Karl Keating, are Cushingites.

___________________________

. The Council of Trent teaches that the grace of Baptism (res sacramenti) is absolutely necessary, without no exception whatsoever, while the exterior water (“sacramentum tantum”) is necessary “re aut voto” ---

Lionel: This is Feeneyite.It is traditional and supports John 3:5.

_________________________

In fact or at least in desire.

Lionel: Which is hypothetical and so does not contradict John 3:5 or Feeneyite EENS.

________________________

In other words, the Church tells us that the effect of Baptism, namely, justifying grace or sanctifying grace is necessary “sine qua non” for salvation, and that it can be obtained in three ways: 1.by Baptism of water (which is the ordinary means to obtain justification); 2. by baptism of blood; and 3. by baptism of desire.

Lionel. Hypothetically it could be received in three ways.In reality, de facto, there is only one way the baptism of water.

In reality only the baptism of water can be given and there are no known cases of BOD,BOB and I.I. This is the Feeneyite version.The baptism of water is the ordinary means to receive justification and we cannot know of an extra ordinary means of salvation.

So since the ordinary means for salvation for adults is faith and baptism(Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II) all need to enter the Church and there can be no exceptions.

_________________________

The Fathers of the Church have always taught this doctrine, and in fact, the Popes[9] and Councils have based their declaration on this matter on their teachings.

Another reason that led Father Feeney to this error is that he, unfortunately, missed the point of the text. The whole context is actually emphasizing on the spiritual rebirth rather than the rebirth obtained by the exterior water, as he erroneously thought. If we look at the whole text, we find that within six verses, Our Lord speaks of a new birth five times (v.3,5,6,7,8), but of water only once (v.5). Explaining what He has just said in v.5, Our Lord says twice: “he who is born of Spirit,” (v.6,8) without mentioning the water anymore. Then in the rest of His discourse to Nicodemus, He explains how this new birth is by “living Faith.” Therefore, the emphases of the whole context is on the spiritual rebirth, which is the grace signified and produced by the Sacrament. This is also how St. Thomas interpreted the verse in question: “ As it is written (1 king 16:7), “ Man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart.” Now a man who desires to be “ born again of water and the Holy Ghost” by Baptism, is regenerated in the heart (i.e. spiritual rebirth), though not in body; thus of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of man but of God.”[10]

Lionel: This is a personal interpretation of Scripture and what it is believed was the view held by Fr. Leonard Feeney, who cannot defend himself today.

However the reality remains: invisible BOD,BOB and I.I cannot be visible exceptions to the dogma EENS. However they are exceptions for Catholic Apologetics.

_____________________

2.) That “God would not allow one to die in the state of grace, but not yet baptized.” “Father (Feeney) taught that God would have seen to it that those few martyrs who were reported to have died without baptism would not have left this life without baptism.”[11]

Refutation: It must be noted that this is the precise error of Father Feeney, resulting from his excessive reaction against the liberals. From this idea he would hold later on that the state of grace was not sufficient for salvation; the character of Baptism is also absolutely required to win eternal life. Let me quote to you Fr. Laisney’s refutation on this error. He says,

“such affirmation makes liars the very person who reported the Martyrdom of these martyrs! This is a gratuitous affirmation, in opposition to the opinion if the Fathers. Father Feeney himself was aware of the novelty of this very opinion of his, thinking he was “improving (sic) upon the teaching of some of the Doctors.”[12]

Lionel. Again I reiterate that we humans cannot physically see any one saved in Heaven without the baptism of water and instead with the baptism of desire and baptism of blood.So how could any one on earth claim that someone is a martyr without the baptism of water?

____________________

In the Bread of Life, p.137. Father Feeney wrote: “ Q. What are we to say to those who believe there are such souls (souls that die in the state of justification but have not received Baptism of Water)? A. We must say to them that they are making reason prevail over Faith, and the laws of probability over the Providence of God.” The answer should rather be: We must say that they make the teachings of the Fathers of the Church, of the Doctors of the Church, of the Popes and Saints prevail upon the “improvements” of Father Feeney!

Lionel: Fr. Leonard Feeney is correct.Faith says the ordinary means of salvation is the baptism of water in the Church. Cushingite reason says there are known exceptions.

The Providence of God says salvation is open to all and to receive it all must enter the Catholic Church.Cushingism says that there is a possibility, that God will choose to save someone outside the Church who is not baptized with water.This is speculation with no proof in real life.There is no known example of someone saved outside Church. We humans can only hope and speculate.

___________________

Fr. Laisney continues, “Why not simply accept the opinion of St. Cyprian, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Fulgence, Innocent II, Innocent III, St. Thomas Aquinas, the council of Trent, St. Catherine of Sienna, Pope Pius IX, etc…that there are such souls in Heaven? Instead of “improving upon the teaching of some Doctors,” let us rather humbly “hold fast to the doctrine of the Fathers”!”

Lionel. None of them state that they have seen someone saved in Heaven without the baptism of water.There could be martyrs in Heaven all saved with the baptism of water.

St.Augustine held the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS.

Pope Pius IX held the strict interpretation of the dogma according to Feeneyism( by Lionel Andrades). If Cushingism is used as a theology, then Pope Piux IX and the other saints would be suggesting that there are exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS. For example when I read the reference to invincible ignorance in the Catechism of the Catholic Church or the Catechism of Pope Pius X, for me this is a reference to a hypothetical case and so irrelevant to EENS. This is not so for the rest of the Catholic Church would read it.So the interpretations of the Cathechisms could be with Feeneyism or Cushingism.

Fr. Leonard Feeney was correct and traditional for me.This understanding depends on my Feeneyite theology(according to L.A).

____________________

3.) The other strange view that Fr. Feeney held is that a person who received the sacrament of Baptism but not the Blessed Sacrament is only a son of God but not of Mary, although both may enjoy the Beatific Vision in heaven. Here is a quotation of what he wrote in his book, Bread of Life, p.97-98:

“I think that Baptism makes you the son of God. I do not think it makes you the child of Mary. I think the Holy Eucharist makes you a child of Mary…What happens to those children who die between Baptism and the Holy Eucharist?…They go to the beatific Vision. They are of the Kingdom of Mary, but they are not the children of Mary. Mary is their Queen, but not their Mother. They are like little angels. There was a strong tradition in the Church that always spoke of them as “ those angels who died in infancy.” They have the beatific Vision, and they see the great Queen, but not move in as part of the Mystical body of Christ…I say: If a child dies after having received baptism, he dies as the son of God, but not yet as the child of Mary…

Refutation: As Father Laisney points out, these words are at least offensive to the pious ear. The Church rather taught that by Baptism one was incorporated into the Mystical body of Christ, and thus became not only a son of God, but also a child of Mary. Our Lady gave birth not only to the Head (Christ) but also to the members of His Mystical Body: there is not a single member of His body whose Mother she is not!

Lionel: This is an interpretation.

The objective fact still remains: there are no known cases of BOD, BOB and I.I for Fr. Leonard Feeney and for me but for Fr. Laisney and Catholic Apologetics there are.This is their inference when they consider BOD,BOB and I.I exceptions to the dogma EENS. It is an objective error.

So with their false premise, they heretically change the meaning of EENS, the Nicene Creed, Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) and reject the ecumenism of return and the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.

__________________________

4) Father Feeney and/or his followers were led to teach confusing things about the character of baptism, saying for instance “the character is itself a sanctifying grace”![13]

Refutation: Briefly, the sacramental character is not at all a sanctifying grace, for they are two different realities. A character is something indelible by nature, in such a way that even if the person who receive this mark, goes to hell, he will still have that mark in hell, whereas sanctifying grace is not permanent; it can be lost by the commission of mortal sin. Moreover, the latter is the one that makes us pleasing to God and heir to the heavenly Kingdom, and not the former. Please see p.37, Baptism of Desire by Father Laisney for further argument against this unCatholic doctrine.

Lionel: Un-Catholic doctrine? The Magisterium and missionaries in the 16th century were teaching un-Catholic doctrine? Pope Benedict said that EENS was no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century.So even for Pope Benedict, the Magisterium in 16th century, would be holding un-catholic doctrine? Even John 3:5?
To suggest unknown cases of BOD, BOB and I.I are known exceptions to traditional EENS is Catholic doctrine?
I affirm Vatican Council II(Feeneyite) which is Catholic doctrine for me while they affirm Vatican Council II(Cushingite) which is Catholic doctrine for them.

-Lionel Andrades