The baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance can be interpreted according to Feeneyism or Cushingism, one approach is irrational

 

 DECEMBER 3, 2015

The baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance can be interpreted according to Feeneyism or Cushingism, one approach is irrational

In the previous blog post  I mentioned that we can interpret Vatican Council II with either Feeneyism or Cushingism. 1 Here I would like to say that we can also interpret other Church documents with Feeneyism or Cushingism.

Also the baptism of desire (BOD), baptism of blood (BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I)  can be interpreted with Feeneyism or Cushingism.I choose Feeneyism since it is traditional and rational.

For instance the baptism of desire refers to the case of a catechumen  who desires to receive the baptism of water but dies before receiving it.

With Feeneyism the baptism of desire is a hypothetical case and so not relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Being invisible for us and known only to God, it cannot be an exception to exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.It does not exist in our reality. 

With Cushingism the baptism of desire is  an exception to the dogma EENs. It  is an example of salvation outside the Church.It is an exception to the strict interpretation of the dogma.In other words it is explicit for us for it to be an exception.

Explicit for us?!! These cases are in Heaven. So how can they be explicit for us? Who are these exceptions? What are their names ? 

There are none.

It is based on this irrationality that the theology of Cushingism was created.It is an innovation, it is fantasy theology. It is heresy and it has been  accepted by the contemporary Magisterium.

 I choose Feeneyism.It was the theology of St. Francis Xavier whose feast day is today.

I can  interpret ' seeds of the Word'(AG 11), imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3),  ' a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men' (NA 2), 'elements of sanctification and truth'(LG 8) and being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) as referring to hypothetical, invisible for us cases.This is common sense. So they are not exceptions to the dogma EENS. This is the Feeneyite approach.Hypothetical cases cannot be examples of salvation outside the Church in the present times.There is no salvation outside the Church.

For a Cushingite these are all explicit cases, seen for example in 2015,in real life. So they are examples of salvation outside the Church, for the Cushingites.Ghosts are exceptions.

Similarly for me the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston suggests the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions or relevant to the Feeneyite version of the dogma.

This is irrational, non traditional and heretical for me, as a Feeneyite.

So for me the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992) CCC 157 ( the Necessity of Baptism ) and CCC 846 ( Outside the Church there is no salvation) do not contradict the traditional interpretation of the dogma. As a Feeneyite I cannot see any objective case of someone saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic  Church.
Similarly for me BOD and I.I should not have been mentioned in Vatican Council II. In LG 14 and AG 7 these are superfluous passages, Cushing Additions, dead wood. They are not relevant or exceptions to the orthodox passages preceding them.
Also BOD and BOB should not have been placed in the baptism section of the Baltimore Catechism and the Catechism of Pope Pius XII. We can administer the baptism of water but we cannot give any one BOD and BOB. We can repeat and see the baptism of water but this is not the case with BOD and BOB. So in this sense they are not baptisms like the baptism of water.So placing BOD and BOB in the Baptism Section of those catechisms was confusing.
The Council of Trent only mentions 'the desiretherof'. It does not state that these cases are explicit or are exceptions to the dogma EENS. 
The bottom line is that the Catholic Church in its magisterial documents ( Vatican Council II, CCC etc) has not changed its old ecclesiology for a Feeneyite.I can attend the Traditional  Latin Mass or the Novus Ordo Mass and the ecclesiology is still exclusivist.

For me Pope Pius XII made a mistake. It was Archbishop Richard Cushing who was in heresy and it was Fr. Leonard Feeney who was  de fide. It was the Jesuits and the Holy Office 1949 which had made an objective error with their Dead Man Walking theory, their visible-dead theology.

-Lionel Andrades



1
It is the same Vatican Council II but interpreted with two different theologies
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/12/it-is-same-vatican-council-ii-but.html

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 15, 2015

Ecclesiology is not changed with I.I and BOD.It never was.Vatican Council II was always orthodox on salvation.The ecclesiology was exclusivist.

To create a new ecclesiology something new must be added. This 'something new' was being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire and that these cases were allegedly inferred to be known to us personally.This was how they did it!

'Being known to us personally' was the something new.With this premise cardinals Marchetti and Cushing could create a new ecclesiology.

Baptism of desire (BOD) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) were mentioned by some popes.What was new, was Marchetti-Cushing linking BOD and I.I to the dogma as an exception.

In the past I.I and BOD were irrelevant to the dogma. Cardinal Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston active at Vatican Council II along with the Jesuits linked it to the dogma and made it relevant.He excommunicated Fr.Leonard Feeney.

In the past, it was always irrelevant to the dogma since hypothetical cases cannot be defacto exceptions in the present times.They made it relevant at Vatican Council II,implying that these cases were personally known to us, so they become exceptions.They became exceptions to the centuries old interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This was the only interpretation of the dogma associated with the Old Mass.

This is the new ecclesiology.We now have the missing link.Avoid the premise and you are back to the old ecclesiology.You can even offer the New Mass along with the old ecclesiology.The real issue is doctrine and not liturgy.

Notice it in Vatican Council II (LG 14,AG 7) but skirt around it and the orthodox passages remain.

For me , I.I and BOD must be followed with the baptism of water.This is the de fide teaching in the dogma. i.e every one needs the baptism of water for salvation.

It is not a dogma that BOD and I.I are the ordinary means of salvation or that they must exclude the baptism of water.

So we can affirm the orthodox passages of Vatican Council II without the Cushing addition and ecclesiology will not have changed.

ORTHODOX PASSAGES

Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. -Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II.

 

Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. -Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II.

 

They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion.-Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II.

CUSHING ADDITIONS

Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."(17) Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6)-Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II

Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.-Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II

Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.-Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II

 

If someone insists on interpreting the Cushing Addition, saying that the baptism of water must not follow, tell him that we do not and cannot know of any such case today (April 15,2015 for example ).There cannot be a known exception to the orthodox passages.So there are really no exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II.

So ecclesiology is not changed with I.I and BOD.It never was.Vatican Council II was always orthodox on salvation.The ecclesiology was exclusivist.
-Lionel Andrades


Joseph Shaw would not say that all need to formally enter the Church for salvation in Britain. This would be the old ecclesiology.Instead he would say that there are exceptions. This is the new ecclesiology.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/04/joseph-shaw-would-not-say-that-all-need.html