Wednesday, September 9, 2015

Fr.Paul Kramer and Fr.Anthony Cekada cannot know of any physical exception to EENS: There are no explicit cases of BOD and BOB

Immagine correlata
Section VII 
General Conclusion 
All Catholics are obliged to adhere to the common teaching on baptism of blood and baptism of desire. According to the norms outlined above, the Feeneyite position represents either theological error, error in Catholic doctrine or heresy. Those Catholics who adhere to the Feeneyite position on baptism of desire and baptism of blood commit a mortal sin against the faith.-Fr.Anthony Cekada on Feeneyism.

Is the baptism of desire and baptism of blood physically visible to us human beings in 2015 ? If there is no such case known or seen then how can BOD and BOB be relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS)?.
If physicially we cannot see or meet any one saved with BOD and BOB, with or without the baptism of water, how can these cases be exceptions to all needing to enter the Church with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.
We do not know of any one saved with BOD or BOB, we do not know a single case on earth and yet  the sedevacantists have a theology which says these cases are exceptions to EENS
When I ask Fr. Anthony Cekada and Fr.Paul Kramer, sedevacantists if Lumen Gentium 16 (LG 16) is an exception to EENS, does it refer to an explicit case ìn 2015, they will not answer.
Since they assumed that BOD and BOB were explicit for us and also assumed that LG 16 was explicit for us.So they interpreted LG 16 as an exception to EENS.Hence they concluded that Vatican Council II is  a break with EENS.
But if BOD and BOB are implicit for us; invisible for us and visible only to God then they are not exceptions to the Feeneyite  version of EENS.
If LG 16 refers to invisible cases, hypothetical for us , then LG 16 does not contradict EENS. Then there is nothing in Vatican Council II which contradicts EENS. Vatican Council II is traditional. It is in agreement with the Syllabus of Errors.

Immagine correlata

Leonard Feeney SJ did not invent the heresy which denies Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood. It was alredy known to be a heresy propagated long before Feeney began to profess this heresy. 


The denial of BOD was aleady known to be a heresy well before Fr. Feeney fell for this old heresy. In my reply to a Feeneyite along with its links to informative articles, you will find all you need in order to understand that BOD & BOB are defined doctrines of the universal & ordinary magisterium that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith. 
Fr.Paul Kramer are you referring to BOD and BOB which is explicit or implcit, visible or invisible, concrete or abstract?
For me BOD and BOB are always implicit, invisible and abstract.

Dear Feeneyite, 

I have examined your entire exposition attempting to critique my position on Baptism of Desire. It is riddled with fallacious assumptions; such as your false attribution to me of an error on the point of necessity of precept vs. necessity of means.
When BOD and BOB are invisible for us, any talk of necessity and precept is hypothetical. Since you do not know of any such case.This was the mistake made in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston.

 Another gross error you make is to equate the doctrine of Baptism of Desire, which pertains to the universal magisterium of the Church, with mere opinions that the Church has tolerated but never has taught or approved. 

Before the doctrine of BOD would have been explicitly and universally set forth by the ordinary magisterium, it would have been permissible to hold a contrary opinion; but that is now and for many centuries no longer the case. BOD as well as BOB (explicitly professed in the Roman Martyrology) have been definitively set forth by the universal & ordinary magisterium, and are therefore infallible and must be believed with divine and Catholic faith.
So I can believe in BOD and BOB as being possibilities known to God.I do not have to link them to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). Since they are invisible and  known only to God they are irrelevant to the dogma. I do not make the link between the two.
So I affirm BOD and BOB as being implicit and a possibility and I also affirm the Feeneyite version of EENS which excludes explicit for us BOD and BOB. This does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction.
So it cannot be said that I am denying BOD and BOB since they can only be accepted as being implicit and not explicit. There is no choice.

 It has become universally defined by the magisterium in no small part, first; because it had been taught by St. Thomas Aquinas and other medieval Doctors, 
True and I accept BOD and BOB. St. Thomas Aquinas did not state that these cases were visible for us and so were exceptions to EENS.He did not make the connection. This has to be inferred.I choose not to infer it.Since it would be irrational to infer that an invisible case is a visible exception to all needing to formally convert into the Catholic Church in the present times.

secondly; because the application of the dogma of Trent to this point by St. Alphonsus has been formally approved by Gregory XVI and by Pius IX, and has been explicitly taught by Pope Pius IX and Pope Pius X in their ordinary magisterium.
Yes I accept BOD and BOB in the ordinary magisterium and for me these cases are hypothetical. They would also be followed by the baptism of water, since this is the dogmatic teaching.

 Furthermore, the 1917 Code of Canon Law prescribed as a universal statute that deceased Catechumens are to be given a Catholic burial and "are to be counted among the bapitzed" (can. 1239).
 St. Pius X teaches that those who have been sanctified by baptism of desire are in the Church not as incorporated members, but in so far as they belong to "the soul of the Church". The basis for this teaching of St. Pius X is the doctrine of St. Robert Bellarmine who succinctly explains in what manner such catechumens are to be considered to belong to the soul of the Church. This distinction was already taught by St. Augustine. 
For me this is a hypothetical case. If such a case existed it would be known only to God.Even if there is some such case 'out there' which would be known to someone .It is a possibility.In general we would not know about this case.So it would not be relevant or an exception to the dogma.
However these cases are unknown to us , for example in Rome in 2015. So every one in Rome in 2015 needs Catholic Faith and the baptism of water to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.There are no baptism of desire exceptions.

Leonard Feeney SJ was not the originator of this heresy.
Fr.Leonard Feeney was saying there are no explict cases of BOD and BOB and so, these cases are not exceptions to the dogma. He was saying there is no salvation outside the Church. BOD and BOB cases do not refer to salvation outside the Church. Since they are unknown cases in our reality. They are zero cases for us.They were zero cases for the Archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Richard Cushing. They were zero cases for Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani who issued the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. So they could not be cases of salvation outside the Church. Since they did not and could not know of any case saved outside the Church i.e without faith and baptism.
So Fr.Leonard Feeney could accept traditional EENS along with invisible for us, hypothetical cases of BOD and BOB.

 The eminent late Nineteenth Century early 20th Century theologian, Francisco Marin-Sola OP, mentions that there have already been some heretics teaching this doctrine: “Certain heretics have affirmed that no adult can be saved without receiving baptism itself before he dies, however much he would burn with desire for it, and that it would do him no good unless he were washed with water." 
The dogma says all need the baptism of water for salvation.Vatican Council II(AG 7, LG 14) says all need faith and baptism for salvation. The Athanasius Creed says outside the Church there is no salvation. The Nicene Creed  says there is one baptism for the forgiveness of sin and in 2015 I do not know any exception of someone being saved with BOD and BOB and without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.So where is the adult who is an exception, for you? Can you name him? Where does he live?
If you do not know of such a case, physically it is unknown to you, then why mention it?

The precise quotations from magisterial sources are presented in the two articles indicated below which more than sufficiently demonstrate beyond all shadow of doubt that Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood are infallible definitions of the Church which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, under penalty of heresy and eternal damnation. 
The articles I am sure will not quote any saint or pope saying that the Baptism of Desire and the Baptism of Blood are visible and known in the present times. Neither will they say that these invisible for us cases are explicit exceptions to EENS. This could be your inference but the  text will not say it.Fr. Paul Kramer 

-Lionel Andrades

Hungarian bishop speaks of Muslim "invasion"


The Hungarian Bishop Laszlo Kiss-Rigo causes a sensation with his dramatic statements. Muslim refugees in his country were a threat and also arrogant. Francis had no idea of the situation.

On a highway refugees on Monday night journey in the direction of the Hungarian capital Budapest. The police could not hold them back.

While Pope Francis calls Europe's Catholics to greater solidarity with refugees, one of his bishops in Hungary causes a stir with his dramatic statements.

"They are not refugees. This is an invasion, "said Bishop László Kiss-Rigó. "They come here and shout out 'Allah is great'. They want to take control. "

The bishop of the border town of Szeged, on the border with Serbia and Romania, where tens of thousands of refugees from countries such as Syria have reached the EU, stood behind Prime Minister, Viktor Orban and his hard-line policy on refugees.

"I fully agree with him," said the 60-year-old Bishop Kiss-Rigó. Pope Francis on the other hand, "does not know the situation." The Muslim refugees are a threat to Europe's "universal Christian values." They do not deserve support because they had money. They also left behind garbage and behaved in an "arrogant and cynical" manner.

Hungary is not considered a particularly religious country. Many are proud of the historical role of their country as a European bulwark against attacks from the Orient. Hungary's national holiday commemorates the Christianization of the country more than 1,000 years ago.
Other church leaders want to help

With his statements Kiss-Rigó apparently does not speak for the majority in the Hungarian Catholic Church. The Pope's call to open parishes and Catholic centrrs for refugees, the Church will comply with "with joy and willingness", declared Hungary's Primate Cardinal Peter Erdo and the President of the Hungarian Bishops' Conference, Andras Veres, on Monday, according to the Italian Catholic press agency, SIR.

Sedevacantists refuse to answer if LG 16 is an exception to EENS

Immagine correlata
Physically how can the case of the baptism of desire(BOD) or baptism of blood (BOB) be seen on earth ? Physically we cannot see or meet someone on earth saved in invincible ignorance( LG 16).
So why cannot Fr.Paul Kramer and the sedevacantists admit this? This is not theology.
I'm only asking them if LG 16 cases, with or without the baptism of water,can be known personally on earth.Can we personally know such a case? No!
Of course not !They are known only to God.
So this fact has to be clear before a theology is created.
Cases of BOD, BOB and I.I ( invincible ignorance of the Gospèl throught no fault of his own) would have to be physically known, visible to the naked eye to be an exception to all needing to enter the Church formally for salvation. They would have to be physically seen to be exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
When they are not known we cannot assume that they are known and then create a theology upon this irrationality.
Similarly we cannot assume that LG 16 is physically known to us and then assume Vatican Council II is a break with EENS - what's the point in discussing theology based on an irrationality .
Possibly they understand what I am saying and are aware of the implications.The sedevacantists and traditonalists were wrong all these years, as was the contemporary magisterium.
Immagine correlataSo when I ask them if LG 16 contradiicts EENS they will not answer.
It would be saying that they, along with the magisterium made a factual error and based their new theology upon it.
The magisterium accepted the new theology and Vatican Council II as
a break with EENS.
The sedevacantists and traditionalists accepted the new theology and rejected Vatican Council II as a break with EENS.
I reject the new theology based on an irrationality and accept Vatican Council II in harmony with EENS.
-Lionel Andrades