Brother Andre Marie MICM, the Prior at the St. Benedict Center does not correct Frs.Brian Harrison and Cekada,Bishops Sanborn,Pirvanus,Kelly and Fellay

Lionel L. Andrades Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:33 am

June 22, 2017
Brother Andre Marie MICM, the Prior at the St. Benedict Center does not correct Frs.Brian Harrison and Cekada,Bishops Sanborn,Pirvanus,Kelly and Fellay

Even Fr.Brian Harrison needs to clarify this issue.Since he writes ,'It seems that in recent debates over “Feeneyism” in traditional Catholic circles, the lion’s share of the cut-and-thrust has been devoted to issue (a) – that is, to arguing for or against the validity of ‘baptism of desire’ and ‘baptism of blood’...' 1
Fr.Harrison takes it for granted also that the baptism of desire and baptism of blood are known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Fr.Harrison was revising an article for Catholicism.org, which assumed the dead who are saved with the baptism of desire and who are now in Heaven are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus). But where are these people? Who can see them in Heaven or on earth? No one.So how can they be exceptions to Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus?
No one - and yet Brother Andre Marie MICM, the Prior at the St. Benedict Center does not correct Fr.Brian Harrison.
For Ralph Martin, Vatican Council II is not Feeneyite. Since for him there are explicit exceptions to the dogma . This is his irrational reasoning.There is no correction from the St.Benedict Center.
On May 25, 2013 I wrote on this blog
No correction from Bro. Andre Marie MICM : the baptism of desire was never an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney and neither physically visible to us.
In 2013 the St.Benedict Centers(St. Benedict Center) and the Society of St.Pius X(SSPX), traditionalists, would argue.The SSPX would say that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the SSBC would say that it is not.They would restrict the communication to theology.And all of us would be going in circles.

Imagine it.There are no baptism of desire cases.So they are not exceptions to Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and all of us are arguing for and against.
Neither of the two groups of good Catholics would simply say that there are no physically known baptism of desire cases in the present times. So invisible cases were not relevant to the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.
Since 2013 none of them are still saying it!
There is no clarification.
The SSPX would cite Mystici Corporis as if it was an exception to Feeneyite Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. Brother Andre Marie simply had to say that there are no known cases of the baptism of desire.They are invisible. They do not exist in our reality.So Mystici Corporis is not a rupture with Feeneyite Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.The text does not say that there are visible exceptions to Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.
There is a long list of baptism of desire references on the Internet posted by Fr.Anthony Cekada.Brother Andre Marie does not tell him that these are references to invisible people. They never were exceptions to Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.Hypothetical cases, possibilities known only to God, O.K.But don't make a connection with Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.
Bishops Sanborn, Pirvanus and Kelly all swear that there are visible cases of invisible baptism of desire.And there is no one at the St. Benedict Centers to help them out.
There is another problem. All of them like the St. Benedict Centers interpret Lumen Gentium 16(invincible ignorance)as a break with Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.Wikipedia and the magisterium does the same. Like at the time of Arian there was a crisis, today we we are in a visible for all, baptism of desire crisis.
So when is Brother Andre Marie going to announce that LG 16 does not refer to a visible person in 2017 ? It could be helpful for me.
People think I am a Feeneyite and so I must be rejecting Vatican Council II since LG 16 is a rupture with the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. I mean it is a rupture for Harrison, Cekada,Brother Andre Marie, Roberto de Mattei, Bishop Clarence Kelly, Bishops Pirvanus and Sanborn,Ignacio Barreiro, the Hildebrands, Bishops Fellay and Williams, Archbishop Lefebvre...............
There is one positive development.No more are there those old arguments on the baptism of desire(baptism of desire). I do not see it any more. Perhaps it is because I am no more on the traditionalist forums. They generally have banned me.The traditionalist and sedevacantist forums are run by Catholics who have had their formation under Archbishop Lefebvre. For him too invisible baptism of desire was a visible rupture with Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.So Vatican Council II became a break with Tradition for him. He did not know that the fault was there with his interpretation.There could also be a Vatican Council II Feeneyite.
Recently on a pro-Bishop Williamson forum I mentioned that invisible baptism of desire was not an exceptin to Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and so Fr. Pfieffer like Bishop Williamson had made a mistake.End of the discussion and my membership there for them.
Fr.Brian Harrison has stopped writing on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.He does not want me to contact him.
Fr.Francois Laisney has stopped writing on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. He does not criticize the St. Benedict Center.
Rorate Caeili does not criticize the Feeneyites any more.
But the problem still is there: VC II is a break with Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus for Rorate Caeili, the traditionalists and sedevacantists.So it means invisible people are still visible for them.
So no one corrected Pope Benedict XVI in March 2016 when he said that Vatican Council II was a rupture with Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus according to the 16th century. No one complained.Since the traditionalists and sedevantists agree with him.It is a rupture with Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus for them even though there are no known exceptions.
Ralph Martin does not want to talk about this.
Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Cekada do not want to touch this subject.They cannot admit they had it wrong all along over invisible people being visible.
Brother Andre Marie will not announce that the baptism of desire being an invisible case is not an exception to Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.
He will not say being saved in invincible ignorance being an invisible case is not an exception to Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.
LG 16 etc refer to hypothetical cases and they should not have been mentioned in Vatican Council II.This was the bad reasoning in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.It was carried over into the Council.
Brother Andre Marie will not say that LG 16 refers to an invisible case in June 2017 and so is not an exception to Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. Vatican Council II is Feeneyite.Hypothetical cases cannot be exceptions to Feeneyite Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.
Vatican Council II is in harmony with traditional Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century.
When is he going to say this? This should be a happy discovery for him.Speak in terms of being physically invisible and visible. Don't get into theology.The Magisterium's theology is based on physically invisible people being visible.
-Lionel Andrades

1.
Clarification/disclaimer would be helpful on the St. Benedict Center website
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/05/no-correction-from-bro-andre-marie-micm.html

MRyan Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:24 pm

Lionel L. Andrades wrote:June 22, 2017
Brother Andre Marie MICM, the Prior at the St. Benedict Center does not correct Frs.Brian Harrison and Cekada,Bishops Sanborn,Pirvanus,Kelly and Fellay

Imagine it.There are no baptism of desire cases.So they are not exceptions to Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and all of us are arguing for and against.
Neither of the two groups of good Catholics would simply say that there are no physically known baptism of desire cases in the present times. So invisible cases were not relevant to the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

Again, the logic is abysmal. You are stating on your own authority that the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus excludes a priori anyone who is not "visibly" united to the Church. The Church has NEVER understood her defined dogma in this manner -- which excludes, for example, the non-sacramentally baptized blood martyr who is baptized in his own blood while professing his faith in Christ, with at least an implicit desire to enter the Church.

To suggest that the latter visible manifestation of supernatural faith and charity is excluded from the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is to be a Church unto oneself.

Unity with Christ and His Church is absolutely essential to sanctification/salvation, but never has the Church defined (or excluded in its definition) that this same unity cannot be realized through the internal bonds of supernatural faith and charity. Nay, she has magisterially confirmed over and over again that one may in fact be sanctified/saved by this same bond of perfect love and supernatural faith.

Brother Andre Marie MICM, the Prior at the St. Benedict Center does not correct Frs.Brian Harrison and Cekada,Bishops Sanborn,Pirvanus,Kelly and Fellay

Brother Andre Marie MICM, the Prior at the St. Benedict Center does not correct Frs.Brian Harrison and Cekada,Bishops Sanborn,Pirvanus,Kelly and Fellay

Re: Brother Andre Marie MICM, the Prior at the St. Benedict Center does not correct Frs.Brian Harrison and Cekada,Bishops Sanborn,Pirvanus,Kelly and Fellay