Pope Pius XII, Cardinal Richard Cushing, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani and Archbishop Lefebvre were heretical, schismatic and irrational : the False Premise created the problem

Father Feeey was wrong when he and his followers taught that a person could or would not be saved by baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance. I DID NOT believe in BOB, BOD OR II the first fifty plus years of my life due to the stance of Father Feeney on these issues.

Father Feeney said on page 25 of his book '' The Bread of Life '', it is now BAPTISM OF WATER , or damnation. If you do not desire(sic) you cannot be justified and if YOU DO NOT GET(sic) YOU CANNOT BE SAVED.

THIS statement was and is heresy by FATHER FEENEY.

Lionel : It is important to make the explicit-implicit, known-unknown and objective-subjective distinction.

'', it is now
BAPTISM OF WATER, or damnation. If you do not desire you cannot be justified.
And if YOU DO NOT GET YOU CANNOT BE SAVED.

 

Explicitly, in real life, practically, objectively all need Catholic faith and the baptism of water and there are no objective cases of the baptism of desire etc.

The norm for salvation is faith and the baptism of water. This is the explicit norm, the objective norm. We can teach someone the faith and check it. We can give someone the baptism of water and view it.

The baptism of desire is always implicit, unknown and subjective. We cannot know of any explicit case. This is something obvious and it was known to the Church Fathers and popes and saints of the Middle Ages.

So there is no confusion here. Fr. Leonard Feeney was correct and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made an objective mistake when it projected unknown cases of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance as being objective and known examples of salvation outside the Church. Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston and Pope Pius XII made a mistake. There could not be any known practical exception for Feeneyite EENS, or EENS of the Jesuits of the Middle Ages.

If someone is saved with the baptism of desire it is known only to God and is not relevant to the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It would be unknown to us.

So the dogma EENS-stands. It is either faith and the baptism of water or damnation.

The Athanasius Creed says the same and does not mention any exceptions.

So we can affirm the strict dogmatic interpretation of EENS and also hypothetical-only, cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance. We do not have to reject either of the two. However the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was heretical, schismatic and non traditional. It was rejecting the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed, Syllabus of Errors, Quanta Cura etc with an irrational interpretation of BOD, BOB and I.I.The False Premise in the interpretation of BOD, BOB and I.I creates heresy and schism and the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.With the False Premise i.e visible cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible it was either BOD, BOB and I.I or EENS.

The liberals,Lefebvrists,Thucs and others cannot say that it is either faith and the baptism of water or damnation, since there are alleged visible cases of BOD, BOB and I.I for them.-Lionel Andrades