Sunday, March 26, 2017

For me BOD,BOB and I.I are invisible for me. This is how it was understood over the centuries.

Anonymous said:
We agree with everything EXCEPT Father Feeney's views and your personal interpretation of what God does do to those who have already died. Only Catholics are saved. We agree on that statement which allows for ALL that has been professed by the Catholic Church to be true. You still treat BOB, BOD and II as an exception to the rule of water on earth. NON WATER is permisible where not possible, such as in the death  of an individual where water was NOT possible such as in BOB or BOD. Father Feeney said loud and clearly that BOB or BOD were not possible under any circumstances. He was totally wrong on this issue.

Lionel:
We agree with everything EXCEPT Father Feeney's views and your personal interpretation of what God does do to those who have already died.
We do not agree on outside the Church there is no salvation. Since for you BOD, BOB and I.I refer to visible cases which are exceptions to Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441.
You like the traditionalists and sedevacantists say every one needs to enter the Church but some do not.
Like the present magisterium you say every one defacto needs to be a member of the Catholic Church  but some do not.This is contradictory reasoning.It also negates the centuries old teaching.
__________________

Only Catholics are saved. 
But for you BOD,BOB and I.I refer to people who are saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. So this is a contradiction.
___________________________

We agree on that statement which allows for ALL that has been professed by the Catholic Church to be true.
Lionel:For me BOD,BOB and I.I are invisible for me. This is how it was understood over the centuries.
For the present magisterium and for you BOD, BOB and I.I refer to known exceptions to EENS.This is not what the Church professed over the centuries. Instead for me this is heresy.
____________________________

You still treat BOB, BOD and II as an exception to the rule of water on earth.
Lionel: For me it is not an exception.
____________________________

NON WATER is permisible where not possible, such as in the death  of an individual where water was NOT possible such as in BOB or BOD.
Lionel: There is no known case where a person will be saved without the baptism of water ( as mentioned in the previous posts).
____________________________

 Father Feeney said loud and clearly that BOB or BOD were not possible under any circumstances. He was totally wrong on this issue.
Lionel: The Church teaches that all need the baptism of water for salvation in the Catholic Church( Council of Trent, Vatican Council II, Catechism of the Catholic Church). Fr.Leonard Feeney said the same thing.
The possibility of BOD and BOB, does not exist as an exception, to the dogma EENS,  since an exception cannot just be a possibility, theoretical or hypothetical case, and still be an exception.An invisible person for us cannot be an exception to EENS. A person assumed to be saved in Heaven with or without the baptism of water cannot be a concrete exception to the dogma EENS on earth.
-Lionel Andrades


MARCH 26, 2017

The ordinary way of salvation is the baptism of water in the Catholic Church; faith and baptism for adults. The general way of salvation is not BOD, BOB and I.I or having a good conscience

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/03/the-ordinary-way-of-salvation-is.html


MARCH 26, 2017

Due to the error in the 1949 Letter the traditionalists and sedevacantists too have chosen the wrong philosophical reasoning.Invisible people are visible for them.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/03/due-to-error-in-1949-letter.html



The catechumen is technically outside the Church he is on the way to Hell. It is only with good will and the new theology based on invisible cases being visible that he is given a burial.

Anonymous said:
This says it perfectly in regards to BOB and BOD>

Catechism of the Council of Trent, On Baptism - Dispositions for Baptism, Tan Books, p. 180: "INTENTION - ... In the first place they [adults] must desire and intend to receive it…" Thus the mention of the word INTENT for catechuems. The untold number of catechesits  who have died throughout the centuries BEFORE receiving Baptism , certainly a number of them have entered purgatory/ Heaven.
Lionel:
Hopefully those 'untold number of catechumens' who have died before receiving the baptism of water in the Catholic Church;they have died without visibly receiving the baptism which they desired, are in Heaven.They could have received the baptism of water in a manner known only to God ( Aquinas/Xavier).
However you are mentioning this with reference to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).If you were simply talking about a hypothetical isolated case it would not be an issue.
For a case of the catechumen to be an exception to all needing to be incorporated into the Catholic Church as a member, the person must exist.We need an actual person in the present times for there to be an exception.
There is no such person and there cannot be any such person for us human beings.Why?
For example let us suppose one of these 'untold number of catechumens', who is mentioned above was known to a Mr.X. Mr.X cannot say ,"Look this catechumen who died yesterday without the baptism of water and has been buried in the Church today, is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Since he has gone to Heaven without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church." Mr.X does not know if the catechuman was in Heaven without the baptism of water.
Since this would be a personal case, judged and known only to God.
He would not know if God chose to give the catechumen the baptism of water after he died.So the deceased catechumen is not really an exception to the dogma EENS.
Mr. XYZ would not know if the person committed a mortal sin and so is not in Heaven.
Neither can he say that all people in general do not need the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since there are known exceptions, like this particular catechumen.This case is not a known exception.
He cannot say that most people are saved since this catechumen whom he knew has been given a burial in the Church.We know that most people in general are on the way to Hell without faith and the baptism of water(AG 7, LG 14).
Mr.X cannot assume that there could be a baptized Christian who will go to Heaven even though he is not baptised in the Catholic Church and as an adult did not have Catholic faith.Christians in general are on the way to Hell according to the Catholic Church(AG 7, LG 14, EENS etc).
The general way of salvation for adults is Catholic Faith which includes the moral and faith teachings and the Sacraments.
It cannot be said that since a catechumen has died and has been given a Catholic burial ( since it is assumed by the cardinals and bishops that he will be saved as such ) the baptism of desire is a known case without the baptism of water.The cardinal and bishops cannot say that any particular catechumen is there in Heaven without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
It cannot be assumed that this is a case which is an exception to all needing to be incorporated into the Church and so the majority of people can be saved and will be saved in a form of universal salvation.
The ordinary means of salvation is being a member of the Catholic Church.The general means of salvation is not being saved since there was a desire for the baptism of water.
We cannot say that there is known person who desired to enter the Church and had a good conscience and so is to be given a burial since the person is saved.Faith and baptism are the general means of salvation and not assuming that someone is saved with a good conscience.
The catechumen is technically outside the Church he is on the way to Hell. It is only with good will and the new theology based on invisible cases being visible that he is given a burial.
For example a person who commits suicide is on the way to Hell but there are liberal bishops who will still given him a burial.
Presently there are people living in manifest mortal sin and bishops will allow them to be buried as Catholics.
The bishops in Malta and Germany will give the Eucharist, and I assume a burial too, to Catholics who have divorced and remarried.
Similarly there are Protestants and non Christians who are outside the Church and pastorally bishops will permit them to marry Catholics and not consider it adultery.
-Lionel Andrades


MARCH 26, 2017


The ordinary way of salvation is the baptism of water in the Catholic Church; faith and baptism for adults. The general way of salvation is not BOD, BOB and I.I or having a good conscience

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/03/the-ordinary-way-of-salvation-is.html


The ordinary way of salvation is the baptism of water in the Catholic Church; faith and baptism for adults. The general way of salvation is not BOD, BOB and I.I or having a good conscience

Anonymous mentions:-
Canon Law (1917): Canon 737: “Baptism, the door and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire necessary unto salvation for all, is not validly conferred except through the ablution of true and natural water with the prescribed form of words.”

Canon 1239: “Those who have died without baptism are not to be given ecclesiastical burial. Catechumens who die without baptism through no fault of their own are to be counted among the baptized.” 
 
Father Fenney denied this as EVEN a possibility. It has been taught by the Catholic Church since  the beginning of the first century. Whether known or unknown is not a factor.

Lionel:
Canon Law (1917): Canon 737: “Baptism, the door and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire necessary unto salvation for all, is not validly conferred except through the ablution of true and natural water with the prescribed form of words.”
It is saying here that the baptism of water is necessary for all. This was what Fr.Leonard Feneey said too.

or at least in desire necessary unto salvation 
This is accomodating the error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) which suggests that the baptism of desire is known in personal cases and is relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
_________________________

Canon 1239: “Those who have died without baptism are not to be given ecclesiastical burial. Catechumens who die without baptism through no fault of their own are to be counted among the baptized.” 

Lionel:
This was also the position of Fr. Leonard Feeney.Those who are not baptised with water in the Catholic Church are not in the Catholic Church.They are outside the Church where there is no salvation.
It is assumed pastorally in Canon Law that a catechuman who desired the baptism of water but died before receving it will be saved and is a member of the Church.
St.Thomas Aquinas says there could be a man in invincible ignorance who is to be saved, will be saved when God sends a preacher to instruct him.Similarly St.Francis Xavier said that God had send people back from the dead only to be baptised with the baptism of water.
So there could be BOD, BOB and I.I cases who are saved after receiving the baptism of water in a manner known only to God.
However the ordinary way of salvation is the baptism of water in the Catholic Church; faith and baptism for adults. The general way of salvation is not BOD, BOB and I.I or having a good conscience.


Father Fenney denied this as EVEN a possibility.
Lionel: 
He denied the possibility of a person being saved without the baptism of water which would be an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).There is no connection between EENS and baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorant(I.I).Since there are no known in personal cases, no exceptions to the dogmatic teaching on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church and all needing to be members. We do not know anyone saved as such without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church,even today(2017).It was not even known also during the time of Fr. Leonard Feeney.
Pastorally allowing catechumens to be given a burial in the Catholic Church comes from the magisterium's assuming wrongly that there are known cases of people saved with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water,outside the Church.
So Fr.Leonard Feeney denied the possibility of being saved outside the Church.He was correct. There are no known exceptions and there are no known catechumans in Heaven or earth, who desired the baptism of water and were saved without it.This is a pastoral development in the Church based on the new theology and salvation-doctrine.
_________________________________ 


 It has been taught by the Catholic Church since  the beginning of the first century. Whether known or unknown is not a factor.
Lionel:
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus has been taught by the Catholic Church since the beginning of the first century and it excluded exceptions.Whether BOD, BOB and I.I are unknown in personal cases was also known over the centuries.
That there are known cases of BOD, BOB and I.I which are exceptions to traditional EENS has come in a big way into the Church with the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office  to the Archbishop of Boston.
-Lionel Andrades

Due to the error in the 1949 Letter the traditionalists and sedevacantists too have chosen the wrong philosophical reasoning.Invisible people are visible for them.

St.Thomas Aquinas spoke about the man in the forest in invincible ignorance he still held the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).Invncible ignorance was not an exception to the dogma. There are no known cases of being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) with or without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
TRADCATKNIGHT FORUM
Trad Cat Knight (Eric Gajewski) has to change his perspective here. 
St. Thomas Aquinas affirmed exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church and did not reject the  unknown,theroretical case of the catechuman who had the desire for the baptism of water and was saved. He believed God would send a preacher to the man in the forest in invincible ignorance who had to be saved.
Trad Cat Knight has cited   with reference  to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).This was the wrong lead in thinking given by the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.Like the present magisterium Eric has picked up the wrong reasoning.
The long list  of the baptism of desire references in his blog post, are not exceptions to Feeneyite EENS, for me.
BOD is compatible with the strict interpretation of EENS.Since BOD for me is always implicit.
It was not like this for Cardinal Cushing and the Jesuits at Vatican Council II.
BOD and I.I should not have been mentioned in Vatican Council II along with orthodox passages supporting EENS  e.g all need faith and baptism for salvation -Ad Gentes 7.
Here are examples.
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. 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." 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)...
The passages in red should not have been mentioned in Vatican Council II.
Since the passages in red refer to hypothetical cases and they cannot be exceptions to the orhtodox passages in blue.
 14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. 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. 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
BOD and I.I being mistaken for being objective and personally known(Letter of the Holy Office 1949) and are responsible for the passages in red being there in Vatican Council II. Once we identify them as being hypothetical and theoretical only, they are no more exceptions to the passages in blue. Then Vatican Council II is no more a rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and the rest of Tradition.Since for there to be an exception to EENS for example in 2017, there would have to be a visible persons. A visible and known exception.Invisible people cannot be exceptions to EENS.
Due to the error in the 1949 Letter the traditionalists and sedevacantists too have chosen the wrong philosophical reasoning.Invisible people are visible for them.The same reasoning is there in Vatican Council II itself and so the Council emerges Christological but not directly Feeneyite.It is without the past ecclesiocentrism.The exclusivist ecclesiology has been replaced with a vague belief in Jesus which is common in the new ecumenism.
This was the false innovation in Vatican Council II which makes the Council, for Eric Gajiewski, a rupture with EENS and Tradition.
Now he has to change his perspective and the Council changes. Change your premise and the Church changes for you.He must see BOD and I.I as not being objective  for humans.This is common sense.It is common knowledge. So then they  cannot be exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.
Then Vatican Council II ( LG 16,LG8, UR 3, NA 2,GS 22) will  also refer to hypothetical cases like BOD and I.I.Vatican Council II is no more a problem. So there would be no reference in Vatican Council II to contradict Feeneyite EENS.The Council would actually be in harmony with Feeneyite EENS.
When Archbishop Lefebvre interpreted Vatican Council II he used the wrong reasoning.The wrong perspective.BOD was an exception to EENS for him. It is not for me.For me Vatican Council II is in harmony with EENS as it was known to the 16th century missionaries.
The Letter-1949 says every one does not need to be incorporated into the Church as a member while the text of the dogma (Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441)  says the opposite.Wrong reasoning in Boston and Rome!
So since 1949 Catholics re-interpret St.Thomas Aquinas with the mistake in the Letter in 1949 and in  Vatican Council II. Eric for example would assume that the man in the forest in invincible ignorance was a known case and so it would mean St.Thomas Aquinas rejected the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).So BOD would be an exception to the dogma for him .He would think he is being supported by St.Thomas Aquinas.This is false.There were no known cases of being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) during the time of St. Thomas Aquinas. He did not know any one saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.St. Thomas Aquinas has not stated otherwise.
I asked in a previous blog post  who is irrational and in heresy-the Holy Office or Fr. Leonard Feeney? According to Chris Ferrara there are no practical exceptions to the dogma EENS.
According to John Martignoni zero cases of something cannot be exceptions to the dogma EENS.
According to Fr. Stefano Visintin osb,Vice Rector of the Pontifical University of St.Anselm, Rome, BOD and I.I are not exceptions to EENS.

So who was in heresy, Fr. Leonard Feeney or the Archbishop and Jesuits in Boston?
-Lionel Andrades
MARCH 25, 2017

So who was in heresy, Fr. Leonard Feeney or the Archbishop and Jesuits in Boston?

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/03/so-who-was-in-heresy-fr-leonard-feeney.htmlMARCH 25, 2017

So there is only one known baptism and not three.TradCatKnight Eric Gajewski misses this point

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/03/so-there-is-only-one-known-baptism-and.html


Saturday, March 25, 2017

So who was in heresy, Fr. Leonard Feeney or the Archbishop and Jesuits in Boston?


Monday, April 28, 2014


Baptism of Desire/Baptism of Blood-Against 

Feeneyism

Baptism of Desire/Baptism of Blood IS
 "binding" on ALL Catholics! by Eric
 Gajewski

 In this hour of the crisis for Holy Mother Church it is necessary
 cover those doctrines which a Catholic must believe in order
 "to be" or "remain a Catholic". Amidst such horrific teachings
 and misapplication of the Catholic Faith coming from the
 Feeneyites, many, who are sedevacanists, we must 
consider what the Church has taught infallibly which is not to
 be considered as mere theological opinion.  BOB/BOD is
 found in Tradition and taught explicitly at the dogmatic 
Council of Trent. It has been taught both thru the extraordinary
 and ordinary Magesterium. It can be found in the Catechism
 of Trent and St. Pius X. Those who reject BOD/BOB are
 objectively speaking "outside the Body of Christ"; they 
are heretics and protestants.
Lionel: I affirm the baptism of desire.
 I affirm implicit for us baptism of desire 
and I reject explicit for us baptism of
 desire. For me the baptism of desire
(BOD) is always hypothetical and a
theoretical issue. For  me it will
 include the baptism of water in
 the Catholic.Why cannot I hold this 
view theoretically? Any way, with 
or without the baptism of water
 you do not know of any case in 
2017. 
This is how I interpret BOD.
So?
I am affirming implicit BOD along
 with the strict interpretation of
 the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla
 salus(EENS). I am affirm invisible
 for baptism of desire alongwith
 the Feeneyite interpretation of
 the dogma EENS.
I affirm the dogma EENS like
 Peter and Michael Dimond but
 I do not reject hypothetical
 baptism of desire which is
 known only to God.They consider 
BOD as being explicit so they reject it.
Not me.
I do not affirm the baptism
 of desire like the SSPX does on 
its website.It is Cushingite 
and irrational.It infers that BOD refers to 
objective cases. Seen in the flesh people.
Otherwise how would it be relevant for
them, with reference to EENS?
The SSPX interprets EENS like the 
present magisterium and the Leftist media.
It is Cushingite and an innovation.
____________________________

I have gathered here some of the texts in which Catholics 
have expressed their belief in baptism of desire and baptism 
of blood through the centuries. It is clear that Catholics have
 always believed in this infallible teaching of the Church:

Lionel: I assume none of them(BOD and BOB)
 refer to visible cases. They do not
 refer to people known. Since if any 
one is saved it would only be known
 to God.
So for me they are acceptable as being
 hypothetical cases.They  are not
 exceptions to EENS.
Fr.Anthony Cekada too has provided
 a long list of references to the baptism 
of desire for the sedevantists.For him BOD
 is an exception to EENS. So he infers 
that BOD is visible  and known in personal
 cases to be an exception to EENS.
________________________

(All quotes below are from the Douay Rheims Version)


Baptism of Blood (Scripture):
I have a baptism [His Crucifixion] wherewith I am to be
 baptized: and how am I straitened until it be accomplished?” 
(St. Luke 12)


“And Jesus said to them: You know not what you ask. Can you 
drink of the chalice that I drink of: or be baptized with the 
baptism wherewith I am baptized? 



But they said to him: We can. And Jesus saith to them: You
 shall indeed drink of the chalice that I drink of: and with the
 baptism wherewith I am baptized, you shall be baptized.” 
(St. Mark 10)



(The Church Fathers) 
Tertullian (died A.D. 220)


"We have indeed, likewise, a second font, (itself withal
 one with the former,) of blood, to wit; concerning 
which the Lord said, “I have to be baptized with a baptism,
 when he had been baptized already. For he had come “
by means of water and blood,” just as John had written; that
 He might be baptized by the water, glorified by the blood;
 to make us, in like manner, called by water, chosen by blood.
 These two baptisms He sent out from the wound in His pierced
 side [Jn. 19:34], in order that they who believed in His blood
 might be bathed with the water; they who had been bathed 
in the water might likewise drink the blood. This is the baptism
 that both stands in lieu of the fontal bathing when that 
has not been received, and restores it when lost.” (On Baptism, 16)



    St. Hippolytus. (A.D. 253) 
  
 “If a catechumen is arrested on account of the name of the
 Lord [i.e., because he is a Christian,] let him not be of double 
heart about his testimony; should violence come to him and he
 is killed, although his sins are not yet forgiven [i.e., he is not
 yet baptized,] he will be justified. For he has received baptism
 in his own blood.” (The Apostolic Tradition, 19)



 St. Cyprian (A.D. 258)


  Let men of this kind, who are aiders and favourers of 
heretics, know therefore, first, that those catechumens 
hold the sound faith and truth of the Church, and advance
 from the divine camp to do battle with the devil, with a full 
and sincere acknowledgement of God the Father, and of 
Christ, and of the Holy Ghost; then, that they certainly are 
not deprived of the sacrament of baptism who are baptized
 with the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood,
 concerning which the Lord also said, that He had “another
 baptism to be baptized with.

Lionel: These links are references to 
hypothetical cases.It is not said that 
BOD and BOB  are explicit and known.
Yet this is how they are wrongly
 interpreted by Eric.One can see these 
links with Feeneyism( BOD is invisible 
and so is not an exception to EENS) 
or Cushingism( BOD is physically 
visible and so is an exception
 to EENS, it also excludes the 
BOW in the Catholic Church)
_______________________________


Baptism of Desire: 


 Dogmatic Council of Trent: 
Sacraments received through desire 
 Trent: “And this translation [to the state of justification],
 since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be EFFECTED,
 WITHOUT THE LAVER OF REGENERATION, AT LEAST IN THE 
it may be received unto salvation “in desire” as well as “actually”.
Trent: “Whence it is to be taught, that the penitence of a
 Christian, after his fall, is very different from that at (his)
 baptism; and that therein are included not only a 
cessation from sins, and a detestation thereof, or, a 
contrite and humble heart, but also THE SACRAMENTAL
 CONFESSION OF THE SAID SINS, AT LEAST IN DESIRE
 [saltem in voto], and to be made in its season, and 
sacerdotal absolution and likewise satisfaction by fasts, 
alms, prayers, and the other pious exercises of a spiritual 
life; not indeed for the eternal punishment,-which is,
 together with the guilt, REMITTED, EITHER BY
 THE SACRAMENT, OR BY THE DESIRE OF THE 
SACRAMENT,-but for the temporal punishment, which
, as the sacred writings teach, is not always wholly 
remitted, as is done in baptism.” (Denz 807)


Trent: “The Synod teaches moreover, that, although it sometimes
 happen that this CONTRITION IS PERFECT through charity, 
and reconciles man with God BEFORE THIS SACRAMENT BE 
ACTUALLY RECEIVED, the said reconciliation, nevertheless, 
is not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of THE
 DESIRE OF THE SACRAMENT which is included therein.” (Denz. 898) 

 St. Ambrose (Doctor, A.D. 397)
 But he even had this desire for a long time, that, when he 
should come into Italy, he would be initiated, and recently he
 signified a desire to be baptized by me, and for this reason
 above all others he thought that I ought to be summoned. 
Has he not, then, the grace which he desired; has he not
 the grace which he requested? And because he asked, 
he received, and therefore is it said: “By whatsoever
 death the just man shall be overtaken, his soul shall
 be at rest” (Wisd. 4:7)


 St. Thomas Aquinas:
And such a man CAN obtain salvation without being
ACTUALLY BAPTIZED, on account of his desire for
Baptism, which desire is the outcome of “faith that
 worketh by charity,” whereby God, Whose power is
not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly
. (Summa Theologica III, 68:2)


 Objection: the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for
 salvation. Now that is necessary “without which something 
cannot be” (Aristotle’s Metaphysics V). Therefore it seems
 that none can obtain salvation without Baptism.
 Reply: THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM IS SAID TO BE 
NECESSARY FOR SALVATION IN SO FAR AS THERE
 CAN BE NO SALVATION FOR MAN UNLESS HE AT 
LEAST HAVE IT IN DESIRE WHICH, WITH GOD, 
COUNTS FOR THE DEED.” (Summa Theologica 3, 68, 2) 

  In another way one may eat Christ spiritually, as He is 
under the sacramental species, inasmuch as a man 
believes in Christ, WHILE DESIRING TO RECEIVE
 THIS SACRAMENT; and this is NOT MERELY TO EAT
 CHRIST SPIRITUALLY, BUT LIKEWISE TO EAT THIS SACRAMENT. (Summa Theologica 3, 80, 2)
Lionel: None of them have said that BOD is an exception to EENS.
Neither is it an exception to EENS for me.
__________________________________




Church Texts Condemning Feeneyism

Richard J. Cushing, Archbishop of Boston
 – Decree Regarding Leonard Feeney,
 April 18, 1949

Rev. Leonard Feeney, S.J., because of grave 
offense against the laws of the Catholic Church 
has lost the right to perform any priestly function,
 including preaching and teaching of religion.

Any Catholics who frequent St. Benedict’s Center, 
or who in any way take part in or assist its 
activities forfeit the right to receive the Sacrament 
of Penance and Holy Eucharist.
Given at Boston on the 18th day of April, 1949.
Lionel: The Archbishop and
the Jesuits in Boston were
 interpreted BOD as being
 visible and known in 
personal cases.This was 
irrational.It contradicts the
 Principle of Non Contradiction.
How could they see people in 
Heaven saved without the 
baptism of water ? How could
 they see pèople in Heaven saved 
with the baptism of water? How 
could they say that 
someone on earth will be saved
without the baptism of water 
but with BOD, BOB or I.I ?
So when it is said that 
'the Church says' someone
(X,Y,Z) is in Heaven without the 
baptism of water in the Catholic 
Church, who is this person 'in 
the Church' who saw these 
cases?
________________________________


Pius XII  Decree Excommunicating
Leonard Feeney, 13 February 1953

Prior to the excommunication, Feeney received 
the following summons to appear before the Holy
 Office from Cardinal Pizzardo on November 22, 1952.

The Holy Office has been obliged repeatedly to 
make your teaching and conduct in the Church
 the object of its special care and attention, and 
recently, after having again carefully examined a
nd calmly weighed all the evidence collected in 
your cause, it has found it necessary to bring 
this question to a conclusion.

DECREE
THE PRIEST LEONARD FEENEY IS DECLARED
 EXCOMMUNICATED

Since the priest Leonard Feeney, a resident of Boston 
(Saint Benedict Center), who for a long time has been
 suspended a divinis for grave disobedience toward
 church authority, has not, despite repeated 
warnings and threats of incurring excommunication 
ipso facto, come to his senses, the Most Eminent 
and Reverend Fathers, charged with safeguarding
 matters of faith and morals, have, in a Plenary
 Session held on Wednesday 4 February 1953, 
declared him excommunicated with all the effects
 of the law.

On Thursday, 12 February 1953, our Most Holy Lord
 Pius XII, by Divine Providence Pope, approved 
and confirmed the decree of the Most Eminent
 Fathers, and ordered that it be made a matter
 of public law.

Given at Rome, at the headquarters of the Holy 
Office, 13 February 1953.

Marius Crovini, Notary

AAS (February 16, 1953) Vol. XXXXV, Page 100
Lionel: So he was excommunicated
 for saying there were no 
known cases of the baptism of
 desire in 1949 and the Archbishop 
and the cardinals at the Holy 
Office in Rome were saying 
there were?
So who is irrational and in heresy
-the Holy Office or Fr. Leonard Feeney?
According to Chris Ferrara there
 are no practical exceptions to the
 dogma EENS.
According to John Martignoni
 zero cases of something cannot
 be exceptions to the dogma EENS.
According to Fr. Stefano Visintini 
osb,Vice Rector of the Pontifical
 University of St.Anselm, Rome, 
BOD and I.I are not exceptions 
to EENS.
So who was in heresy, Fr. 
Leonard Feeney or the Archbishop
 and Jesuits in Boston?
-Lionel Andrades