Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Bishop Donald Sanborn hiding the truth

Image result for photos of no replyI have been sending these blogposts to the sedevacantist Most Holy Family seminary,Florida over the years but I get no reply.
Bishop Sanborn has posted an article on the Internet, The Anti-Feeneyite Catechism. This article still does not respond to the what I have writtedn in my blog posts, the points raised there.He should know by now that I am not using the apologetics of the St. Benedict Centers. I speak for myself.
I recently sent the following blog post to the seminary and received a mechanical reply saying they would respond-but there is no reply.About a year back the bishop said not to send him any e-mails.
The sedevacantist Bishop Sanborn uses Cushingism to interpret Vatican Council II and seems unaware of the Feeneyite choice

Nor is there any comment on this blog post:

Bishop Sanborn uses situation ethics, subjectivism and known exceptions to EENS, as a reasoning, to interpret Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition.The liberals do the same
Even on Twitter the priests of the seminary would not respond.
Fundamentally what I am saying is that the baptism of desire is always hypothetical for us and  so cannot be an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiiam nulla salus(EENS). So I can accept the baptism of desire without rejecting the strict interpretation of EENS.This is not the apologetics of the St. Benedict Centers. So they can call me a Feeneyite but not for the reasons mentioned in Bishop Sanborn's article.
For me Fr.Leonard Feeney was saying there are no exceptions to the dogma EENS, there are no known cases of the baptism of desire for them to be exceptions.He accepted  the possibility of the baptism of desire of a catechumen who dies before receiving it.Fr.Leonard Feeney  did not consider it relevant or an exception to the dogma EENS.The Cushingites were making it relevant.They were also re-interpreting all historical references to the baptism of desire as being visible and known in real life.
Anyway this is how I understand the issue so why doesn't Bishop Sanborn comment instead of just lumping me with every one and repeating the same liberal propaganda on this issue to avoid saying that the sedevacantists and traditionalists were wrong all these years.
-Lionel Andrades

What if?

There have been so many reports on this blog but Bishop Athanasius Schneider will still not affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) according to the 16th century missionaries.So he had no comment when Pope Benedict said the dogma had been developed by Vatican Council II.
Bishop Schneider agrees  with Pope Benedict. For both of them hypothetical qualities mentioned in Vatican Council II are explicit, objective,seen in the flesh exceptions in 2016 to all needing to enter the Church with no exceptions.
In Bishop Athanasius Schnieder's mind the Baltimore Catechism and the Catechism of Pope Pius X was correct.Since it placed the baptism of desire in the section on Baptism, the baptism of water.In his mind the baptism of desire is known like the baptism of water.It is repeatable like the baptism of water and it's results are the same, it is accepted in faith; it is the same as the baptism of water in personal cases.
The baptism of desire is concrete for him, similar to the baptism of water.
So for him the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was correct in criticizing Fr.Leonard Feeney for not accepting the baptism of desire etc.as a known exceptions to the dogma EENS.This was also the reasoning of the popes from Pope Pius XII to Pope Francis.
So Vatican Council II has developed too like the dogma EENS.The dogma EENS has exceptions,for Bishop Athanasius Schneider.Vatican Council II also mentions these exceptions ( LG 16).
But now after some 70-plus years it is being asked what if LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 et refer to hypothetical cases?
Then would the baptism of desire, a hypothetical case, be an exception to EENS?
What if if these cases were invisible for us? What if the baptism of desire was known only to God?
What if no one in Baltimore knew of a baptism of desire case? What if no one saw or knew of the results of a baptism of desire case?
Did Pius X know of someone saved with the baptism of desire? Was it concrete for him?
'Zero cases of something are not exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus'.These are the words of John Martignoni. Not mine.
So many people since then have said the same thing.Except Bishop Athanasius Schnieder.
What if there is no development of doctrine, no development of EENS in Vatican Council II?
What if?
What if Bishop Athanasius Schneider is wrong?
What if the new theology is based on a mistake in perception?
What if Pope Benedict was wrong?
There is no known development in EENS.
Vatican  Council II has not developed EENS.
When will Bishop Athansius Schneider discuss this?
-Lionel Andrades