In 2015 I wrote to Fr. Anthony Cekada, sedevacantist at the St. Gertrude the Great Church, Ohio,USA telling him that there are no known cases of the baptism of desire in our reality and the long list of his references to the baptism of desire do not state that they refer to personally known people saved outside the Church. No pope or saint has said this. However he infers that the saints and popes were referring to known people saved outside the Church.So the baptism of desire is an exception to his concept of Feeneyism.
ANNOUNCEMENT AWAITED
Common sense tells us that the baptism of desire is always hypothetical for us. So the baptism of desire never ever was an exception to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).So when will he make an announcement saying they were wrong on this issue?
For him the baptism of desire was an exception to Feeneyite EENS and so he wanted the communities of Fr. Leonard Feeney, the St. Benedict Center in the USA to say the same. Since they would not do so he accused them of being in mortal sin.
He needed to apologize to the Slaves of the Immaculate Hear of Mary since now we know that hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire were not relevant or exceptions to EENS.
VATICAN COUNCIL II NO MORE BASIS FOR SEDEVACANTISM
Today I reminded him via e-mail that not only is the baptism of desire not an exception to Feeneyite EENS since there are no practical exceptions but there are no exceptions to EENS in Vatican Council II. Vatican Council II does not contradict the Syllabus of Errors etc. So with Vatican Council II not a rupture with Tradition( when hypothetical cases are interpreted as just being hypothetical and not objective exceptions to EENS) then there is no reason to go into sedevacantism assuming Vatican Council II is a rupture with Tradition.
FLIPPANT
He responded flippantly.Probably he wants me to come back after another three years and he will still be teaching the seminarians that Vatican Council II contradicts the Syllabus of Errors and there are objective cases of the baptism of desire which are exceptions to Feeneyite EENS in 2015-2018.
BAPTISM OF DESIRE A RUPTURE WITH FEENEYITE EENS FOR THREE SEDEVACANTIST BISHOPS
The Pastor at the St.Gertrude the Great church, their principal church, is Bishop Daniel Dolan.He was ordained a bishop in 1992 by Bishop Mark Pivarunas of the Congregatio Mariae Reginae Immaculatae (CMRI).It is also a traditionalist sedevacantist community which interprets Vatican Council II as a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors.Also for them the the baptism of desire is a rupture with Feeneyite EENS.Yesterday I e-mailed these blog posts to the CMRI and Bishop Pivarunas.There is no response from him.
I have also e-mailed Bishop Donald Sanborn, the founder of the sedevacantist Most Holy Trinity Seminary, Florida.Fr.Anthony Cekada is a member of the faculty. .
When will Fr.Anthony Cekada have the integrity to say that he made a mistake about the baptism of desire(BOD) and the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary being in mortal sin ?
Over three years, he knows that the BOD can be interpreted as being 1) visible and known in personal cases or 2) just hypothetical.The conclusion is different. That it is hypothetical for us is common sense.It was obviously hypothetical for the popes and saints in the past too.
FR.CEKADA MADE A MISTAKE ON VATICAN COUNCIL II TOO
Fr.Cekada made a similar mistake with Vatican Council II. He interpreted Lumen Gentium 16(invincible ignorance) and Lumen Gentium 14( case of the catechumen) as being exceptions to Feeneyite EENS. So his inference was that these were known people.Otherwise they could not be exceptions.For him these were known cases of salvation outside the Church.So Vatican Council II became a rupture with Tradition and he went into sedevacantism,when the fault lay with this false premise.
Three years back perhaps there was a problem with comprehension on his part but now after being informed are we dealing with deception and sin ?
FR.CEKADA KNOWS THERE ARE NO KNOWN CASES OF THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE IN 2018
There should be an announcement from Fr. Anthony Cekada saying that he agrees that there are no known cases of the baptism of desire in our reality.
Mystici Corporis, Syllabus of Errors and the Catechisms of Trent and Pius X are referring to hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance.
SEDEVACANTIST INFERENCE WAS WRONG.
So these Magisterial documents never were objective exceptions to the traditional interpretation of outside the Church there is no salvation.The inference of the sedevacantists were wrong.
TRADITIONALISTS AND SEDEVACANTISTS MADE A MISTAKE ON VATICAN COUNCIL II
Fr.Cekada also needs to announce that LG 8,LG 14,LG 16, UR 3, NA2 ,GS 22 etc refer to invisible people in 2018 and so they are not exceptions to the old exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. They are not exceptions to the Syllabus of Errors on ecumenism etc.So we can affirm Vatican Council II and Feeneyite EENS.Vatican Council II is compatible with the old exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.
FAITHFUL NEED TO BE INFORMED
It is not a rupture with Tradition as the traditionalists and sedevacantists wrongly believed over the last 50 years.They need to announce that they made a mistake in their interpretation of Vatican Council and the Council is no more a reason to go into sedevacantism.
This announcement should also be made for the interests of seminarians,the faithful and Catholics at large, by Bishop Daniel Dolan and Bishop Donald Sanborn.
-Lionel Andrades
http://www.traditionalmass.org/priests/dolan.php
http://www.traditionalmass.org/priests/sanborn.php
http://www.sgg.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/20180311.pdf
https://sggresources.org/http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=28&catname=2
_________________________________________
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment