Feeneyite-Lefebvrist/Liberal doctrinal conflict revived with the false premise : Most Holy Family Monastery video

  

The traditionalist-sedevacantist Peter Dimond of the Most Holy Family Monastery, New York has put out a new video on their website which is important for Catholics to study.In this video he cites the popes who held the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) with no exceptions.But in the debate, with Nick Santousso,he is asked about the exceptions.Nick cites the popes who mentioned the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism fo blood (BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I). For Nick this was a rejection of the dogma EENS as interpreted by Peter and Michael Dimond on the MHFM website.

This is the old Feeneyite-Lefebvrist doctrinal conflict, which we have done away with, but now emerges anew.We have discovered the error and corrected the mistake.So it is no more an issue in the Church.

Peter and Nick needed to see BOD, BOB and I.I not as physically visible people on earth in 1949-2021 but as invisible cases.They are not visible examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church.This is a fact of life. It is common sense.This is the point that needs to register.We cannot meet or see someone saved outside the Catholic Church with BOD, BOB and I.I and without the baptism of water.We cannot meet or see an ‘exception’.There are no literal cases.Theoretically we can imagine someone but in reality there can be no such case.

Nick mentions explicit and implicit BOD but BOD is always implicit, subjective and theoretical.It is not explicit for us human beings. It can only be explicit for God.

So Peter and Nick were using the false premise.They were confusing what is invisible as being visible and then making wrong inferences.In their mind they created ‘ exceptions’.Nick would cite them and Peter would reject them since they would contradict the dogma EENS.

We now know that it was possible for the Council of Trent to affirm the necessity of the baptism of water for salvation, with no known exceptions,and also to mention ‘the desirethereof’ which of course could only be hypothetical and theoretical. There were no literal cases on earth.We cannot administer the BOD or judge that someone in particular will go to Heaven with BOD and without the baptism of water.So the Catechism of the Council of Trent does not mention any practical exceptions for EENS.

Also the Catechism of Pope Pius X affirms outside the Church there is no salvation (24Q,27Q) and mentions being saved in invincible ignorance, which has to be hypothetical always.Being saved in invincible ignorance can only be a possibility known to God.The norm for salvation is the baptism of water with Catholic faith,for adults.

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO) to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney made a mistake. It used the false premise to project BOD and I.I as exceptions to Feeneyite EENS. Pope Pius XII, Cardinal Ottaviani, Cardinal Cushing and Archbishop Lefebvre over looked this mistake.

The popes today and the SSPX still accept the LOHO which brought in a New Theology into the Church. They use this New Theology to interpret Vatican Council II. The popes employ the false premise and accept the non traditional conclusion. The SSPX employs the same false premise and rejects the non traditional conclusion.

In the video Peter Dimond rejects the LOHO and Nick Santasuosso accepts it.-Lionel Andrades

“Baptism Of Desire” Debate – Bro. Peter Dimond vs. Nick Santosuosso
https://endtimes.video/baptism-of-desire-debate-june-2021/