Bishop Richard Williamson Administered Confirmations At Feeneyite Chapel - May 25, 2016



Bishop Williamson / Fr. Leonard Feeney

Father Gerardo Zendejas
helped coordinate the event.

Confirmations - Bishop Richard Williamson (2016/05/25)

Posted on You Tube
Bishop Williamson visited Our Lady of the Pillar Chapel in Louisville, KY, on Wednesday, May 25th to administer the sacrament of Confirmation and to celebrate Holy Mass. Special thanks also to Fr. Zendejas for his help in coordinating the ceremonies.

Father Gavin Bitzer is the pastor of Our Lady of the Pillar Chapel in Louisville, KY. Father Bitzer holds the erroneous Feeneyite position denying baptism of blood and desire and is in heresy.

Confirmations with Bishop Williamson

Click Here To View The Bulletin : Bulletin May 22, 2016 Bishop Williamson's name is located at bottom of the bulletin.

SSPX has always spoken out against Feeneyism!

Source: Ven. Maria de Agreda Traditional Catholic Mission




About the Feeneyites

May 2001 District Superior's Letter

During this holy season of the Church’s year we thank God for the grace of our sacramental baptism, through which we were buried together with Christ so that just as Christ has risen from the dead we might live in newness of life, becoming adopted children of God and heirs to heaven through the sanctifying grace that the Good Lord has deigned to bestow upon us.

However, what must we say of the lot of those who did not have the opportunity of receiving this same grace of sacramental baptism? It might seem on the surface of it to be a theological technicality. However, you need to be aware of a certain group of people, followers of Fr. Feeney, who have attempted to infiltrate the Church these past 50 years, and who continue to do so, thanks to the present-day paralysis of the Church’s authority structure. Pretending to be ultra-rigid and super-strict they deny baptism of blood and baptism of desire, despite the universal teaching of the Fathers and the Magisterium, repeated in every catechism.

In fact, they are nothing other than hidden liberals, basing themselves upon the assertion that the Church’s teaching concerning baptism of blood and desire is not formally defined, and that consequently it is optional, and that one is free to believe what one wants. The total fascination that some of these Feeneyites have with "the dogma", the constant effort to proselytize for their opinion, and their refusal to accept the objective and repeated statements of the Fathers, theologians and popes and their constant effort to infect traditional Catholics all show how dangerous and unCatholic their error really is.

It is certainly true that we Catholics must desire to defend the dogma "Outside the Church no salvation" as well as the Church’s teaching on the necessity of the sacrament of baptism. Given that the liberals so easily deny these doctrines, it is certainly very easy to understand how some Catholics might overreact in their interpretation of these teachings. However, it is entirely unacceptable for a Catholic to willingly and knowingly deny the Church’s explicit teaching on the question of baptism of blood and desire. For it is not because these questions are not formally defined that they are optional extras that a person can take or leave.

There are in fact different ways in which the Church’s teaching is presented to us, of which the most solemn is the definition de fide catholica. The contrary of such a definition is a heresy. However, the Church proposes many teachings to us in a less formal manner, not as the object of a direct definition, such as is found in the constant teaching of the Fathers, Councils or the popes. Such teachings are still a part of the deposit of the Faith, although they are not yet defined, and include such things as the existence of Limbo, or that Mary is Mediatrix of all graces, or such teachings as the Assumption, the Immaculate Conception and Transubstantiation before they were formally defined.

These teachings always were a part of the Deposit of the Faith, and before they are defined are proxima fidei, that is close to the Faith, so that those who knowingly deny them are suspect of heresy. It is in this category that can be found the Church’s teachings concerning baptism of blood and baptism of desire. Many erudite works (I recommend Fr. Rulleau’s book, Baptism of Desire and Fr. Laisney’s new book, Is Feeneyism Catholic? published by Angelus Press) list texts from the Fathers and theologians, who are unanimous in their teaching about the possibility of baptism of blood and desire. This one text alone of the Council of Trent should, however, suffice:

this translation (to the state of grace) after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it…". (Denzinger [Dz], The Sources of Catholic Dogma, 796)

The Feeneyite error is consequently a very grave one, for in denying the very possibility of baptism of blood and baptism of desire, it denies the very possibility of God Himself exceptionally giving the grace of justification, and hence eternal salvation for those who die in the state of sanctifying grace. However, this is explicitly taught by the Council of Trent’s Decree on Justification (Session vi, ch. 6, Dz 798). God is not bound to the sacraments, but God who uses them as the ordinary means to infuse sanctifying grace into the soul, can Himself directly provide the grace that is normally received through the sacrament, by infusing a supernatural Faith in the Church’s teachings, a supernatural hope for God’s mercy, a supernatural charity and the perfect contrition for all sin. It is a rare grace and one that cannot be presumed upon, but he who denies the possibility, denies the power of grace, and makes God out to be an unjust monster who condemns to hell the catechumens and martyrs who deny without baptism through no fault of their own.

It cannot be denied that this apparently black and white simplification of the Church’s teaching on the necessity of the sacrament of baptism and of belonging to the one true Church has an attraction for some traditionally-minded Catholics. The reason is to be found not only in the substitution of private opinion for the Church’s teaching that is typical of liberalism, but also in a narrow-minded legalism that overlooks the primacy of grace, and hence that of the interior life, making the sacramental character more important than the grace of the sacrament for which we receive the character. Sacraments are for men, and not vice versa. Their sole purpose is to make us members of the mystical body of Christ, in order to give us the sanctifying grace and actual graces needed for our salvation. The sad consequence of these attitudes is that many Feeneyites are impervious to the explanation of the Church’s teaching, that they also lack docility in many other aspects of the Catholic life, that they deliberately take isolated texts out of context to justify their false opinion, and look for legalistic arguments to discredit Fr. Feeney’s condemnation by the Holy Office in 1949, and excommunication in 1952.

The purpose of these few lines is to inform you of the gravity of this issue, which is not at all one open to free choice. Objectively speaking, Feeneyites commit a grave sin against the Faith, even if they are not aware of it. This is the reason why the Society of St. Pius X does not allow any proselytism of this error in or around its chapels and faithful, either by word of mouth or by written handouts. In a time of normality in the Church, Rome would continue to act authoritatively, condemning this error and possibly making a de fide definition concerning baptism of blood and desire. If it is time that Feeneyites take advantage of the confusion caused by the breakdown in the Church’s authority, we have no excuse for contributing to this confusion by weakness or lack of clarity in our exposition of the Church’s teaching, as found in the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

May St. Joseph the Worker help us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, and may the Blessed Mother place us under her mantle in a very special way during this month of grace.

Yours faithfully in Jesus, Mary and Joseph,

Fr. Peter R. Scott

See also on this topic: Errors of the Feeneyites

Deleted member 149

Bishop Richard Williamson Administered Confirmations At Feeneyite Chapel - May 25, 2016

And this wasn't the first time. He administered confirmation there for the feeneyites in 2013 There after, it was alleged that he did not know they were Feeneyites; which I beg to differ. Bishop Williamson has been stationed in the U.S. for many years who knew Fr. Bitzer (ex-sspx priest) being ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre turned feeneyite.

Bishop Williamson is all about trad-ecuemnism; he said in one of his Eleison Comments he would serve whoever asks of him (sic).
Last edited by a moderator:


Well-Known Member
Machabees wrote:
Bishop Williamson is all about trad-ecuemnism; he said in one of his Eleison Comments he would serve whoever asks of him (sic).


Bishop Williamson, you need to explain to everyone why you and Fr Zendejas will give sacraments to people in ERROR, but not to Your Priests , whom you taught, who hold unwavering to the Full Truth and who follow in the footsteps of Archbishop Lefebvre! You say you would serve whoever asks of you, but that appears to be a lie because Fr Pfeiffer and Fr Hewko have asked, and you REFUSED... WHY?

Deleted member 149

Explicitly recorded in the 12th Ecumenical Council, also called the Fourth Lateran council (1215):

Text. We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy that raises against the holy, orthodox and Catholic faith which we have above explained; condemning all heretics under whatever names they may be known, for while they have different faces they are nevertheless bound to each other by their tails, since in all of them vanity is a common element. Those condemned, being handed over to the secular rulers of their bailiffs, let them be abandoned, to be punished with due justice, clerics being first degraded from their orders. As to the property of the condemned, if they are laymen, let it be confiscated; if clerics, let it be applied to the churches from which they received revenues. But those who are only suspected, due consideration being given to the nature of the suspicion and the character of the person, unless they prove their innocence by a proper defense, let them be anathematized and avoided by all 1-intil they have made suitable satisfaction; but if they have been under excommunication for one year, then let them be condemned as heretics. Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church; so that whenever anyone shall have assumed authority, whether spiritual or temporal, let him be bound to confirm this decree by oath. But if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness, let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province. If he refuses to make satisfaction within a year, let the matter be made known to the supreme pontiff, that he may declare the ruler's vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled lay Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of faith; the right, however, of the chief ruler is to be respected as long as he offers no obstacle in this matter and permits freedom of action. The same law is to be observed in regard to those who have no chief rulers (that is, are independent). Catholics who have girded themselves with the cross for the extermination of the heretics, shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defense of the Holy Land.

We decree that those who give credence to the teachings of the heretics, as well as those who receive, defend, and patronize them, are excommunicated; and we firmly declare that after any one of them has been branded with excommunication, if he has deliberately failed to make satisfaction within a year, let him incur ipso jure the stigma of infamy and let him not be admitted to public offices or deliberations, and let him not take part in the election of others to such offices or use his right to give testimony in a court of law. Let him also be intestable, that he may not have the free exercise of making a will, and let him be deprived of the right of inheritance. Let no one be urged to give an account to him in any matter, but let him be urged to give an account to others. If perchance he be a judge, let his decisions have no force, nor let any cause be brought to his attention. If he be an advocate, let his assistance by no means be sought. If a notary, let the instruments drawn up by him be considered worthless, for, the author being condemned, let them enjoy a similar fate. In all similar cases we command that the same be observed. If, however, he be a cleric, let him be deposed from every office and benefice, that the greater the fault the graver may be the punishment inflicted.

If any refuse to avoid such after they have been ostracized by the Church, let them be excommunicated till they have made suitable satisfaction. Clerics shall not give the sacraments of the Church to such pestilential people, nor shall they presume to give them Christian burial, or to receive their alms or offerings; otherwise they shall be deprived of their office, to which they may not be restored without a special indult of the Apostolic See. Similarly, all regulars, on whom also this punishment may be imposed, let their privileges be nullified in that diocese in which they have presumed to perpetrate such excesses.

But since some, under "the appearance of godliness, but denying the power thereof," as the Apostle says (II Tim. 3: 5), arrogate to themselves the authority to preach, as the same Apostle says: "How shall they preach unless they be sent?" (Rom. 10:15), all those prohibited or not sent, who, without the authority of the Apostolic See or of the Catholic bishop of the locality, shall presume to usurp the office of preaching either publicly or privately, shall be excommunicated and unless they amend, and the sooner the better, they shall be visited with a further suitable penalty. We add, moreover, that every archbishop or bishop should himself or through his archdeacon or some other suitable persons, twice or at least once a year make the rounds of his diocese in which report has it that heretics dwell, and there compel three or more men of good character or, if it should be deemed advisable, the entire neighborhood, to swear that if anyone know of the presence there of heretics or others holding secret assemblies, or differing from the common way of the faithful in faith and morals, they will make them known to the bishop. The latter shall then call together before him those accused, who, if they do not purge themselves of the matter of which they are accused, or if after the rejection of their error they lapse into their former wickedness, shall be canonically punished. But if any of them by damnable obstinacy should disapprove of the oath and should perchance be unwilling to swear, from this very fact let them be regarded as heretics.

We wish, therefore, and in virtue of obedience strictly command, that to carry out these instructions effectively the bishops exercise throughout their dioceses a scrupulous vigilance if they wish to escape canonical punishment. If from sufficient evidence it is apparent that a bishop is negligent or remiss in cleansing his diocese of the ferment of heretical wickedness, let him be deposed from the episcopal office and let another, who will and can confound heretical depravity, be substituted.

Last edited by a moderator:


Well-Known Member
It's unfortunate that most people could care less about the above writings of the council. It baffles me that these so called "resistors" are following Bishop Williamson.


The three baptisms by Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer

Originally featured in the March 1998 issue of The Angelus magazine.
In the past three years, there has been increasing discussion within traditional Catholic circles concerning the issue of the three baptisms. There have been a number of works, even videos, that have come into circulation on the topic, each of which seems to uphold essentially the same view, namely:

"unless one is baptized with the baptism of water "in re," "in actuality," that one will necessarily be damned (i.e., deprived of the beatific vision).

The proponents of this doctrine are followers of the teaching of the famous American Jesuit, Fr. Leonard Feeney, who cites the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( Outside the Church there is no salvation) against anyone who would claim the existence of three baptisms.
How necessary is the sacrament of baptism? What are the so-called "three baptisms"? Is this distinction of baptisms a novel distinction designed by the liberals to destroy in the minds of men any thought that the Catholic Church is absolutely necessary for salvation? Is this distinction truly contrary to the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus?

Such questions are often posed by the followers of Fr. Feeney, questions that they claim point to only one "true" answer, summarized in the following conclusion, taken from Fr. Feeney himself in his 1952 book, Bread of Life, where he states on p.25:
It is now: Baptism of Water, or damnation! If you do not desire that Water, you cannot be justified. And if you do not get it, you cannot be saved.

The necessity of baptism
Did not Our Lord Himself say that "unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" [Jn. 3:5]? How necessary is it to be baptized, according to the saints and the Church’s teaching? The Council of Trent teaches in the following de fide canons:
Can. 4. If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire for them through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema (On the Sacraments in General, Dz. 847, emphasis added).
Can. 5. If anyone saith that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema (On the Sacrament of Baptism, Dz. 861.).
From the above teaching of Trent, which is a canonization of the teaching of St. Thomas on the necessity of baptism, it is de fide that baptism is necessary in a double way, by a necessity of precept, and more importantly, by a necessity of means. A thing is necessary for salvation by a necessity of precept, when it obliges because of the command of a superior. If the command is not known, or too difficult to fulfill, one is not obliged to fulfill it. In such a way, Sunday Mass attendance is necessary for salvation. Infants are not obliged to attend Mass, and even adults, if they are ill or a great distance from Mass, are not obliged to attend.
A thing is necessary also by a necessity of means when by its own nature or by the Divine institution it is so necessary for salvation, that without it, salvation cannot be obtained, even if it is involuntarily omitted. In this manner sanctifying grace is necessary for eternal life.

Baptism is necessary by a necessity of means for salvation by the Divine institution, since it is the God-given means of entrance into the Mystical Body of Christ, in which body alone is found sanctifying life, True Faith, Divine Hope and Divine Charity. Baptism is the doorway to the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, which is the beginning of heaven. Is baptism necessary? Yes. It is a necessary means, a means to obtain the reality of sanctifying grace, that grace found only in Christ:

He that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him and will manifest myself in him...we will come to him and make our abode with him. (Jn. 14:21-23)
According to Trent, baptism is so necessary that it must be had, in re aut in voto - in reality or desire, before one can be in the state of Justification, or Sanctifying Grace. The Fathers of the Council state the following in Chapter 4 of Session 6:

In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the "adoption of sons" [Rom.8:15] of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our Savior; and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for itas it is written: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." [Jn. 3:5] (Dz. 796, emphasis added)
Before proceeding, please note that in this above passage, Trent interprets John (3:5) to mean that one must be baptized with water, either in reality or in desire to attain justification. All Catholics, therefore, are obliged to accept this interpretation of Trent. St. Augustine in City of God, Book 13, Ch.7, gives a similar interpretation to these words, as well as Hugh of St. Victor in his Summa Sententiarum, Tract. V. Cap. V.

Baptism of desire and blood
Since the baptism of water is so necessary as an indispensable means, what are the three baptisms? Some claim that they are a liberal phenomenon found "dogmatized" in the Baltimore Catechism and endorsed only by liberal theologians and modernists who use this distinction to take away the need for water, and the Church. The baptism of water is the first baptism. What are the other two?

The baptism of desire (flaminis) is described by the Church Doctor St. Robert Bellarmine - in accordance with St. Thomas’s definition of the same - as follows:
Perfect conversion and penitence is rightly called baptism of desire, and in necessity at least, it supplies for the baptism of water. It is to be noted that any conversion whatsoever cannot be called baptism of desire; but only perfect conversion, which includes true contrition and charity, and at the same time a desire or vowed intention of baptism (De Sacramento Baptismi, Liber I cap. VI).
St. Alphonsus Ligouri defines the baptism of blood (sanguinis) as:
The baptism of blood is the shedding of blood, or death suffered for the faith or for some other Christian virtue... this baptism... remits the fault and the punishment due sin (Theologia Moralis, Tomus III, Tract II, author’s translation).

Fr. Feeney states in Bread of Life that these two "so-called" baptisms are really but two forms of the same modern diabolical hoax of desire:

Desire is a splendid diabolical word with which to confuse people. Up until recent times, even the most ambitious of the theologians of the Church never dared to use it in connection with baptism except in a study of the nature of justification, which still left the problem of salvation unsolved - salvation by "Baptism of Desire" (p. 39).

Despite the above claim of Fr. Feeney (that theologians never dared to speak of desire except as to its producing of justification), Catholic theologians, especially since the time of Hugh of St. Victor (d. 1141 AD), have unanimously referred to a threefold distinction of baptisms. In the 1000 years of Church history prior to Hugh there are also to be found amongst the Fathers, including some of the Popes, explicit references to these other two baptisms. The triple distinction of baptisms is referred to in the following manner by Hugh of St. Victor himself:

On the Triple Baptism. There is a triple baptism, the river, the flame and the blood. The river in water, the flame in penance, the blood in martyrdom [author’s translation].
Hugh wrote these words in the early 12th century and they are contained in the 177th volume of the famous Latin Patrology of J.P. Migne in the appendix of the dogmatic works of Hugh. Hugh is brief in this appendix, but in his widely read Summa Sententiarum, he devotes a chapter to proving the existence of these three baptisms from the Fathers of the Church and against the heretic Peter Abelard, who refused to believe in the baptismus flaminis referred to in English as the baptism of desire.

Hugh of St. Victor, around 1125, wrote to his friend, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, and asked him to write against the teaching of those who deny the doctrine that salvation may be obtained by desire for baptism. St. Bernard obliges in his Letter 77 to Hugh of St. Victor. St. Bernard, by far the greatest Doctor of the 12th century, writes plainly and clearly, using the authority of Sacred Scripture and the Fathers of the Church to back up his belief in what is called the baptism of desire. He states at one point in his letter:

We adduce only the opinions and words of the Fathers and not our own; for we are not wiser than our fathers... Believe me, it will be difficult to separate me from these two pillars, by which I refer to Augustine and Ambrose. I confess that with them I am either right or wrong in believing that people can be saved by faith alone and the desire to receive the sacrament, even if untimely death or some insuperable force keep them from fulfilling their pious desire (Letter 77, 1, 8).
St. Bernard continues, quoting the authority of Scripture to affirm his above assertion that Ambrose and Augustine are right in stating that desire can, in extraordinary cases, supply the want of baptism:

Notice also that when the Savior said "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved," He cautiously and alertly did not repeat the phrase "who was not baptized," but only "Whoever does not believe will be condemned" [Mk. 16:16]."

Doctrine of theologians
In the treatises on baptism in almost any theological manual of the past several hundred years, one will find the treatment of the three baptisms under the heading of the necessity of baptism. In no case does the Catholic theologian speak of baptism of desire in such a way so as to have "still left the problem of salvation unsolved - salvation by Baptism of Desire."

All of these manuals (99.9% of which are written in Latin), like St. Bernard, quote the authority of Ambrose and Augustine, both saints and Fathers of the Church. They usually quote at least several other saintly authorities, as well as a few popes of the past two millennia in defense of the doctrine that there truly is a triple distinction of baptism, that this distinction is a Catholic distinction, that it is the constant teaching of the Church. The saints and Catholic theologians of the past millennium who write on the topic of the triple baptism are in agreement with Sts. Bernard, Ambrose, Augustine, including the Angelic Doctor himself, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Common Doctor of the Church. St. Thomas (d. 1274) wrote in support of the Fathers’ and Doctors’ teaching that there are three modes of baptism, in the Tertia Pars (Q. 66, A. 11; Q. 68, A. 2) of the Summa Theologica.

Concerning this great work of St. Thomas, Pope Leo XIII in Aeterni Patris writes:
The Fathers of Trent made it part of the order of the conclave to lay upon the altar, together with the code of Sacred Scripture and the decrees of the Supreme Pontiffs, the Summa of Thomas Aquinas, whence to seek counsel, reason and inspiration.

Such is the teaching of the above saints. One would think, however, from reading some of the recent works of the followers of Fr. Feeney that the doctrine of the baptism of desire was held as an obscure opinion amongst some misguided Catholic theologians and saints - saints who got it wrong in deference to St. Thomas, who believed the doctrine only in deference to St. Augustine, who held it because he once heard a sermon of St. Ambrose, "On the Death of Valentinian" in which the saint states that the unbaptized 20-year-old emperor, who was murdered in the Alps while on his way to be baptized by Ambrose, had saved his soul because of his ardent desire for baptism and his supernatural virtue.

In that sermon written by St. Ambrose, he writes:
But I hear that you mourn, because he did not receive the sacrament of baptism ... Does he not have the grace that he desired; does he not have what he asked for? Certainly what he asked for, he received. And hence it says ‘But the just man, if he be prevented with death, shall be in rest’ [Wis. 4:7] (PL 16, 1374).

Mr. Thomas A. Hutchinson of Charlemagne Press dismisses this teaching of St. Ambrose, and the teaching of his disciple, Augustine (City of God, Bk. 13, 7; On Baptism, Bk. 4, Ch. 22), and his disciple, St. Thomas (IIIa, Q. 66, A. 11), as a "misunderstanding" in his book Desire and Deception (1994). He states:

But he uttered in the course of this sermon three fateful sentences, upon which a whole structure of thought has since been built up... Very many people throughout the centuries, his own disciple, St. Augustine included, have taken those three terse lines to mean that St. Ambrose believed that Valentinian had been saved without actually passing through the waters of baptism. But, in fact, this is an incorrect interpretation of his writings (p. 26) ... But this brings us to Trent, and yet another Ambrose-Augustine style misunderstanding (p. 54, emphasis added).

Are we to assume that Mr. Hutchinson and like-minded followers of Fr. Feeney have a better understanding of Ambrose than Augustine, his own disciple, who was baptized by the same Ambrose? Are we to assume that the Fathers of Trent erred in seeking their "counsel, reason and inspiration" from a St. Thomas who wasn’t able to grasp Augustine’s "misunderstanding" of Ambrose’s emotional homiletic moment? We must assume likewise that poor St. Bernard, and Hugh of St. Victor, as well as a host of other saints and Doctors before and after Aquinas, such as Sts. Bonaventure (Comment. in Libris IV Sent., Lb. IV), Robert Bellarmine and Alphonsus Ligouri (Theologia Moralis, Liber VI), based their belief in the salvific power of supernatural desire for baptism on that so-called fateful day of Valentinian’s funeral?

The teaching of the popes
What do the popes teach of this baptism of desire? Do they uphold, as the followers of Fr. Feeney, that baptism of desire and blood are contrary to the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus? Innocent III, the first pope to define the dogma of Salvation only in the Church, also taught that desire for baptism supplies for the effects of baptism, in the case that water baptism cannot be received - due to impossibility, not neglect or contempt (cf. Augustine, On Baptism, Bk. IV, Ch. 22). Hence in his decree about a Jew who, in danger of death, attempted to baptize himself, since those around his death bed refused to baptize him, he decrees:

We respond that, since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, when He says to the Apostles: "Go, baptize all nations in the name etc.," the Jew mentioned must be baptized again by another, that it may be shown that he who is baptized is one person, and he who baptizes another ... If, however, such a one had died immediately, he would have rushed to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith (Dz. 413, emphasis added).

Pope Innocent II taught the same with regard to a priest, when after his death it was found that he had not been baptized. He writes:

Read (brother) in the eighth book of Augustine’s City of God where, among other things it is written, "Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes." Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned (Innocent II, Letter Apostolicam Sedem, Dz. 388, emphasis added).

Notice that these popes, like St. Bernard, follow the teaching of Sts. Ambrose and Augustine. Does this mean that we can hold their teaching as optional? Are we to claim that Fr. Feeney, Mr. Hutchinson and the like have a better understanding of the relationship between Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, and the doctrine of the necessity of baptism? That the theologians of the past millennium and doctors of the same period, when they write of baptism of desire and blood as included in Trent’s notion of the necessity of baptism were not theologically bright enough to see the supposed "contradiction" between the Gospel of St. John (3:5) and desire and blood, between Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the same? As Catholics we submit to the unanimous teaching of our authorities.

Is baptism of desire contrary to Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus?

Bishop George Hay, Bishop of Edinburgh, Scotland (d. 1811), in his excellent Catechism, The Sincere Christian, devotes a good portion of Volume II of the work to the question of salvation out of the Church. He says that it is impossible to be saved outside the Church, because the Church is the rule or measure of faith, without which faith it is impossible to attain heaven. Natural good will is not enough to be saved. Anyone who dies with natural good will alone cannot be saved. However, if God gives the grace to embrace the true faith, and one accepts - that is baptism of desire - he is truly a member of the Church, and can therefore be saved inside the Church. In Volume I he explicitly affirms that baptism of desire saves souls who cannot receive baptism of water. Let us conclude this article with the teaching of this great bishop:

In like manner, suppose a person living in a false religion dies without giving any sign of embracing the true faith, or without being reconciled to the Church of Christ, we can never say of such an one with certainty that he is lost; all that we can say must be under the same condition as in the other case: if he has actually died as he lived, separated from the true Church of Christ and without the true faith of Christ, he cannot be saved. But if God, of His great mercy, has given him in his last moments light and grace to see and embrace the true faith, and he has corresponded with so great a favor as God requires, he will be saved....

Q. 28. But, in the case proposed, if a person in his last moments shall receive the light of faith from God, and embrace it with all his heart, would this suffice to make him a member of the true Church in the sight of God?

A. Most undoubtedly; the case is the same in this as in that of baptism. Though Jesus Christ expressly says, "Except a man be born of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (Jn. 3:5), which establishes the absolute necessity of baptism for salvation; yet, suppose a heathen should be instructed in the faith of Christ, and embrace it with all his heart, but die suddenly without baptism ... in the above dispositions with sincere repentance and a desire for baptism, this person will undoubtedly receive all the fruits of baptism from God, and therefore is said to be baptized in desire. In like manner, suppose a person brought up in a false religion embraces the true faith, which God gives him in his last moments - as it is absolutely impossible for him in that state to join the external communion of the Church in the eyes of men, yet he certainly will be considered united to her in the sight of God, by means of the true faith which he embraces, and his desire of being united to the Church, were it in his power. (Sincere Christian, Vol. 2, pp.322-323.).


Well-Known Member
On another forum, somebody accuses OLMC seminarians of going to the local (Kentucky Feenynites chapel) on weekends when Fr. Hewko and Fr. Pfeiffer are away. So, I asked Fr. Hewko if the seminarians do such and he answered, NO.

Here is the original post:
I notice the Sect is trying to take Bishop Williamson to task for having administered confirmations at Fr. Gavin Bitzer's chapel.

To be consistent, the dupes should also take the Jonestown "seminarians" (that's a laugh!) to task, since they go to Fr. Bitzer's Feeneyite chapel when Fr. Pfeiffer/Hewko are away spreading doctrinal errors on Sundays.

Does this mean that Fr. Pfeiffer is a Feeneyite in league with Fr. Bitzer?


I wonder what price Fr. Bitzer has paid for Confirmations in his chapel?

I wonder who really is drinking the koolaid? (Jonestown)

Deleted member 149

That forum you mention is ABL3. The post you mention is from seanjohnson who is a relentless prop-up and cover-up for Bishop Williamson's errors in which he was referring to this CM thread.

Notice when asked to verify it, seanjohnson does not, only to say in further hyperbole "You can call Fr. Bitzer if you desire certitude." and other off-comments. Yet, seanjohnson wants exact "certitude" when it comes to BW and his errors; which there is plenty of...and he parades around them. (sic)

In addition, Mr. Johnson wishes to claim we and Fr. Pfieffer are "heretics" when we say there is NO grace coming from the novus ordo protestant MASS to distract away from BW's advice for souls to actively participate in the novus ordo MASS, to foolishly quote the Council of Trent out of context when it's cannons directly relates to the Mass and sacraments of the St. Pius V MASS (known as the Tridentine Mass) and NOT referring to the ecumenical protestant novus ordo MASS that was created some 400+ years later!

Further, when they try to defend BW's grave error to recommend a book by Maria Valtorta that was condemned by the Catholic Church in 1949 and again in 1959, they shrug it off only to say "I simply cannot see it being a danger to my soul or a sign of their [BW's] liberalism." and close the thread.

Heaven help them.
Last edited by a moderator:

Deleted member 149

This nonsense of Bishop Williamson to continue in his many Eleison Comments to support the novus ordo as a way of salvation is exactly what the modernists what him and others to think and say. Vatican II, its new revolutionary structure, and its protestant mockery mass trying to ape God was designed to apostate souls. The spin-off ecclesia dei group was a fish-net made to entrap wandering souls into such awkward and erroneous thinking. Awkward, because one can see it if they want to; erroneous, because they did not walk away but rather want the sin of the Egyptian lands.

Now in catholic tradition Bishop Williamson had opened the ugly door of "trad-ecumenism" to enter in; where the old-sspx closed it. This reminds me of John Paul VI infamous saying that "the smoke of satan entered into the church".

Going to feeneyites to give them sacraments that is condemned by the church, placating sedevacantists in there error, and supporting souls to go to novus ordo heretical functions are actions of a true loose-independent revolutionary. There is NO salvation in two, three, or legions of irreconcilable positions; they all point to the father of lies from which they were born.

We do not serve man!

Trad-ecumenism is another form of the spirit of Vatican II -they share the SAME mold of protestantism- independent thinking and attacks against the origin of Christ in his authority to govern and Kingship over us.

This opening of the novus ordo mass for "salvation", as if it wasn't already a dead horse, is another tribute to find favor with the masses. Let's just say there is grace in the novus ordo protestant mass and it is alright. St. Paul says: "fools!" To whom does he serve? Certainly not Christ who was mocked and crucified for holding one religion. To whom listens? Only those who align with error.

There is NO grace in the rite of the protestant MASS; be clear. There is NO grace in the rite of the novus ordo Mass which surrounds a possibly valid catholic sacrament(s). The mass and sacraments are two different things. The eucharist in the mass, any mass, including a satanic mass is valid when done properly by a validly ordained catholic priest; yet there is NO grace in the rite of the mockery mass. The Eucharist can be consecrated all by itself without any other part of the mass before or after it. As was done many times by catholic priests in prison or in the catacombs. The RITE of the novus ordo mass that surrounds a possibly valid eucharistic consecration is NOT catholic; it is revolutionary and pentecostal; the rite is bad; it is poison; it diminishes the faith...there is no sacrifice; which also diminishes the belief of validity to the sacrament of the eucharist. Much of what Archbishop Lefebvre had already taught us.

There is all the difference in the world of a novus ordo mass done in 1969 and one done in 2016 from 50 years of ecumenism worshiping Baal. It is an injustice to God and his Church to say that all the eucharistic sacraments of the novus ordo are "valid" when the sacrifice is missing in word and intention. So which one is and which one is not? Who will commit the abomination to go to one that is not? Dare you play a game with God and your soul. The novus ordo is a bastard rite that came from hell as did the temptations that made it. NO catholic has a right to go to it; there is NO grace in the rite of the clown mass of Baal -period!

There is NO sacrificial nature to the novus ordo supper. Therefore, there are NO legitimate novus ordo masses; NO grace flows from illegitimacy and mockery! The catholic word MASS means one of sacrifice; to where Christ offered the first Mass of himself in sacrifice that Holy Thursday night to which we must commemorate the SAME sacrifice -Do as I have instructed you!

"For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep." (Corinthians 11).

Such are catholics and catholic bishops today; many are infirm and weak, and many sleep doing their own thing. (La Sallete)

We must follow the sound teachings God gave to Archbishop Lefebvre as He gave to other saints to guide us through rocky times.

Prayer, penance, and sackcloth is still a catholic reality. We must seek its wisdom.
Last edited by a moderator:

Deleted member 149

Needing to add to the above,

As the false-resistance continues with their false arguments, they show that they have no weight while grasping at straws. They keep trying to use pre-vatican II theology to support post-vatican II heresy of the new mass.

There is NO support for the novus ordo heresy as there is NO support for Bishop Fellay to say, endorse, and encourage that "95% of vatican II is in light of tradition" and that the novus ordo mass is "legitimately promulgated". By the false resistance stating their argument that there is "grace" coming from the rite of the novus ordo mass to use pre-vatican II theology is also saying that they and BW all believe the rite of the revolutionary protestant new order mass is 100% in light of tradition and that it is legitimate. (sic!)

Which Bishop Williamson and his false resistance do say:

here Bishop Williamson states Novus Ordo Mass is legitimate

and here Bishop Williamson Fails to Make Necessary Distinctions

and here Bishop Williamson believes in the conciliar church!
Last edited by a moderator: