I am looking for a good article to post on this subject, primarily because we have a reader who seems eager to address the issue. Any suggestions?
I see Catholicism.org has a whole list of linked articles on the issue; Farley Clinton has an article entitled "The Leonard Feeney Quarrel and Pius IX on Invincible Ignorance" (CatholicCulture.org) that is fairly lengthy. Googling "Feeney" and "invincible ignorance" brings up an SSPX article roundly criticizing Fr. Feeney's book, The Bread of Life (1952) as contradicting Church teaching. Here are some more historical details concerning Abp Cushing and the Holy Office from EWTN. The bottom line, as far as I can see, has to do with how "Extra ecclesiam nulla salus" is meant to be understood. Feeney (excommunicated in 1953) apparently held that original sin is wiped away only by the character imprinted on the soul by Baptism. Does this mean nobody under the Old Covenant (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses) is to be found among the saved? Absurd. So then, what does the statement mean? Have at it, if any of you are interested. Only, please observe the rules of common sense etiquette. Stick to the subject. No ad hominems or rudeness. No "carpet bombing" of copied text into the combox. No unwarranted inferences from cited sources casting aspersion on anyone. Etc. Etc. Etc.
Related: Geertjan Zuidwegt, "Salvation and the Church: Feeney, Fenton, and the Making of Lumen Gentium" (Academia.edu, Louvain Studies, 37 [2013], 147-178)
A proposition
ReplyDeleteA proposition has to be rational and then we can draw principles from it.
For example, I could say that at a certain time of the year thousands of starlings will fly in formation in Rome and they will do so even next year if all things remain the same.
I can say this since I have seen the starlings myself and I have seen them every year.
I cannot say the same for the baptism of desire being a logical exception to the dogma, if I was asked to consider the baptism of desire as an exception. Since I would be wrong at the onset.The baptism of desire is not objective for me.Neither is it known in general to any one. So it cannot be proposed as an exception.It would be irrational to assume that a hypothetical case is a defacto exception to the dogma.This would not be a rational proposition. So I cannot propose that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance opposes the dogmatic teaching which says all need to formally enter the Church for salvation ( with faith and baptism).
Yet this is the irrational proposition made by many Catholics, including traditionalists.It is the number one irrational proposition in the Catholic Church.
I cannot see the dead saved with the baptism of desire. This is something real and factual for me.
This is not theology. It is not a theological principle.
It is not a philosophical principle.
I simply cannot see the dead.
The SSPX and the St.Benedict Centers( Fr.Leonard Feeney's communities) have created theologies based on the dead being visible on earth.
They have also extended this irrational reasoning to the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
Now when I present this information to them they do not want to admit that they made a factual mistake all these years. They were misled and they misled others.It was something they overlooked innocently.
It is also difficult for them to say, and I can understand this,that the magisteriuim made a factual mistake.Not a mistake of theology or philosophy but an objective mistake. The wrong theology and philosophy came later to support the factual error.
In response to this irrational theology I simply keep saying 'I cannot see the dead on earth. I cannot see any one saved with the baptism of desire in Heaven.' Do not propose an irrationality.No I cannot accept it.
-Lionel Andrades
Proclamation
ReplyDeleteWhen I say all non Catholics need to enter the Catholic Church and there are no exceptions in 2014 I am affirming the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church before and after Vatican Council II.This is a de fide teaching of the Church which comes from Jesus' words(John 3: 5, MK.16:16). It is repeated in the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7).
It is contradicted in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 when it was inferred that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are visible to us and so are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
This error is repeated in the interpretation of Vatican Council II when it is mistakenly assumed that Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance) is an exception to the traditional 'rigorist' interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney ( See Wikipedia- extra ecclesiam nulla salus / Fr.Leonard Feeney).Though the actual text of Vatican Council II does not make this factual error.However this is the common inference used.
Since I do not make this objective error I can proclaim the Catholic Faith like the saints and popes before Vatican Council II and - be in agreement with Vatican Council II, which is made much of by the leftist lobby using the irrational premise, the visible-dead theory.
So for me all Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, Protestants and Orthodox Christians need to enter the Church to go to Heaven and avoid Hell since there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known over centuries. Also Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 in orthodox passages of the Council, affirm the dogma as interpreted by the Church Councils, saints,Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center ( mentioned in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949).
So the leaders of the 'great religions' were on the way to Hell without Catholic faith and the baptism of water. According to my Catholic beliefs, the leaders of Islam for example, did not have 'faith and baptism'(AG 7). Also they knew about the Catholic Church but did not enter and so are lost (Lumen Gentium 14).
Similarly the Jewish leaders of today are informed and educated. They will be lost to the fires of Hell ('the devouring fire' mentioned by the Jewish Prophet Isaiah) unless they convert into the Church.
So when I proclaim that any particular leader of a religion is on the way to Hell, or is already there,
I base this observation on the dogmatic teachings of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is not a personal opinion independent from the Catholic Church. For me it is thinking with the Church, it is being in step with the Church, which does not change its doctrines. This has been the teaching of the magisterium in magisterial texts.
How individual popes and cardinals interpret it may not be the same as me.They differ amongst themselves.However I can cite references for my views in Vatican Council II and traditional documents. I also do not interpret Vatican Council II with an irrational inference as do the popes, cardinals, bishops etc.-Lionel Andrades
ReplyDeleteIt is the magisterium which has contradicted itself
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/it-is-magisterium-which-has.html
VATICAN COUNCIL II CAN BE READ ACCORDING TO CUSHINGISM OR FEENEYISM. THE TEXT IS NEUTRAL http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/vatican-council-ii-can-be-read.html
Did Pope Pius XII make a mistake ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/did-pope-pius-xii-make-mistake.html#links
Did Pope Pius XII make a mistake ? : implicit desire, invincible ignorance have nothing to do with extra ecclesiam nulla salus http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/did-pope-pius-xii-make-mistake-implicit.html#links
Catholic Religious indicate the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made a factual mistake :implicit desire etc is not visible to us http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/catholic-religious-indicate-letter-of.html
Did Vatican Council make a factual error ? http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/did-vatican-council-make-factual-error.html
December 20, 2014
ReplyDeletePlease don't give him an article which infers that there are known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/12/please-dont-give-him-article-which.html
I quickly checked the references that Catholicism made and noted that there appears to be a confirmation bias at work.
ReplyDeleteIn reading St. Thomas'cited article on faith (http://newadvent.org/summa/3002.htm#article8) we find that at the end St. Thomas is discussing those who are baptized. If this were not the case, then it would appear that St. Thomas is superceding the Gospels with his own gloss - and that he is not.
But this is all rather unnecessary.
The question appears to be simply: Can an unbaptized person achieve salvation? Well we know from the Council of Trent that a desire of baptism is also sufficient.
So fundamentally, someone who is not sacramentally baptised can achieve a state of grace and if this is maintained until death, they will be saved.
Now, as to the matter of faith, taking up the thread above - St. Thomas makes distinctions between what degree of knowledge or 'content of Faith' is required for various classes of people.
For example a Bishop must have a higher content than a Priest, who must have a higher degree of explicit Faith than a lay-person. There are lesser requirements for the unbaptized.
So at the extreme end, the minimum requirement for belief is as stated in the letter to Archbishop Cushing, which has basically been repeated in the Second Vatican Council. In this case, since it is not at variance with how the Church has understood the dogma pre-conciliarly and even conciliarly, it is (imo) somewhat pointless to argue the point.
http://tradicat.blogspot.com/2014/01/outside-church-there-is-no-salvation_20.html
P^3
When Holy Mother Church definitively teaches this, she is (as Abp Lefebvre claimed) that since the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church established by Christ to be the instrument of salvation, anyone who is saved is saved through the Church, and further that "membership" in the Church isn't sufficient for salvation, but Baptism (in one of three ways) is necessary.
ReplyDeleteWhen Holy Mother Church definitively teaches this, she is (as Abp Lefebvre claimed) that since the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church established by Christ to be the instrument of salvation, anyone who is saved is saved through the Church,
ReplyDeleteLionel;
Agreed.
and further that "membership" in the Church isn't sufficient for salvation,
Lionel:
It is here where I must part ways with the good Archbishop.
For Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre to change the traditional interpretation of the dogma is heretical.To teach a new doctrine is not traditional
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/10/october-24-2014-lionel-barbaralook-at.html
Would you say that was also an oversight of Archbishop Lefebvre ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/10/would-you-say-that-was-also-oversight.html#links
Archbishop Lefebvre on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus according to Mundabor- he made a mistake
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/10/archbishop-lefebvre-on-extra-ecclesiam.html#links
If Louie Verrecchio answers the two questions frankly he would be at odds with the SSPX http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/10/if-louie-verrecchio-answers-two.html
So there are two lines of thought within the SSPX. One of them is wrong.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/10/so-there-are-two-lines-of-thought.html
The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) and the Vatican Curia's doctrinal position has become their political stand : talks could collapse again because of egoism
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/10/the-society-of-stpius-x-sspx-and.html
Muller-Fellay doctrinal deadlock : stuck on the ' visible dead ' issue
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/10/muller-fellay-doctrinal-deadlock-stuck.html
SSPX is still part of the problem : communique on the Beatification of Pope Paul VI
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/10/sspx-is-still-part-of-problem.html
Maria Guarini, Father Stefano of Radio Vobiscum also like Padre Serafino Lanzetta FFI make the same mistake on Vatican Council II
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/10/maria-guarini-father-stefano-of-radio.html
The SSPX must accept Vatican Council II, lock, stock and barrel, without the irrational inference. This has the hermeneutic of continuity with the past. This Vatican Council II is traditional
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/10/the-sspx-must-accept-vatican-council-ii.html
Vatican Council II affirms extra ecclesiam nulla salus for me
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/10/vatican-council-ii-affirms-extra.html
_____________________________________
but Baptism (in one of three ways) is necessary.
Lionel:
Yes a person could be saved with the baptism of water, desire and blood but defacto there are no known cases of the baptism of desire and blood. We can only phsyically see and physically administer the baptism of water. It is the only known baptism.If someone would be saved without the baptism of water it would only be known to God.
So the baptism of desire and blood are not defacto exceptions to the traditional teaching on all needing to be formal members of the Church. They are irrelevant to the 'rigorist interpretation' of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
Tradical
ReplyDeleteI quickly checked the references that Catholicism made and noted that there appears to be a confirmation bias at work.
Lionel:
Usually the common bias with the SSPX and the St.Benedict Centers, is asuming hypothetical cases are defacto exceptions to the dogma.
This was the original error of the Holy Office and Cardinal Cushing. They inferred that the baptism of desire was known and visible in personal cases to be exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney. In other words they could see the dead on earth.
_________________________________
...But this is all rather unnecessary.
The question appears to be simply: Can an unbaptized person achieve salvation?
Lionel:
Please be aware that this is a hypothetical question. So do not asume it refers to a defacto case and posit is against the dogma.
______________________________________
Well we know from the Council of Trent that a desire of baptism is also sufficient.
Lionel:
Again the Council of Trent only referred to implicit desire/baptism of desire. It did not state that these cases are known and visible to us, defacto, or that they are exceptions to the dogma. So please do not make this inference and then suggest that the Council of Trent say this.
_____________________________________
So fundamentally, someone who is not sacramentally baptised can achieve a state of grace and if this is maintained until death, they will be saved.
Lionel:
O.K. Hypothetically.
_____________________________________
Now, as to the matter of faith, taking up the thread above - St. Thomas makes distinctions between what degree of knowledge or 'content of Faith' is required for various classes of people.
For example a Bishop must have a higher content than a Priest, who must have a higher degree of explicit Faith than a lay-person. There are lesser requirements for the unbaptized.
Lionel:
Fine. But please do not infer, though, that these cases are personally known to us.
And if they are not personally known to us how can they be relevant to the dogma?
__________________________________
So at the extreme end, the minimum requirement for belief is as stated in the letter to Archbishop Cushing, which has basically been repeated in the Second Vatican Council.
Lionel:
Cushingism assumes that hypothetical cases are defacto exceptions to the dogma.
______________________________
In this case, since it is not at variance with how the Church has understood the dogma pre-conciliarly and even conciliarly, it is (imo) somewhat pointless to argue the point.
Lionel:
Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as interpreted by Fr.Leonard Feeney, unless, you are using Cushingism in the interpretation. Most people, liberals and traditionalists, are doing just this.
________________________________
Catholic Mission,
ReplyDeletePP must have posted this one for you, since I don't see much interest in the subject beyond your avalanche of material. Why has this become such a hobby horse for you? Just seems odd.
I'm curious what you would say about the Blessed Mother, since, as far as I know, she was never confirmed formally as a Catholic.
What about Elijah, who was reportedly taken into heaven, though was never baptized?
Or, for that matter, St. Joseph? Do you see him in heaven?
What about the thief on the cross, of whom our Lord said that today he would be with Him in paradise? Was he a baptized member of the Church in good standing?
Oh, Limbo? Even St. Joseph? The Blessed Mother? I think not.
What about catechumens who die before they are baptized and confirmed?
So you're denying that "invincible ignorance" or "baptism of desire" are possible, or just that anyone can know that they're actual?
Succinctly, please.
Trady pooh:
ReplyDelete... Why has this become such a hobby horse for you? Just seems odd.
Lionel:
Since it is clear to me that the Holy Office and the Archdiocese of Boston in 1949 made an objective error.Cases of the baptism of desire etc would have to be known and be visible to us to be exceptions to the interpretation of the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
The popes instead have assumed that Pope Pius XII. was correct.Since then theology has gone off the rails in the Catholic Church.It has become irrational.
Implict for us, invisible for us baptism of desire, a possibility known only to God is perfectly compatible with the 'rigorist interpretation' of the dogma. It does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction.If you aware that these cases are not visible in the flesh to be exceptions there is no contradiction.
_____________________
I'm curious what you would say about the Blessed Mother, since, as far as I know, she was never confirmed formally as a Catholic.
Lionel
She was sinless and went to Heaven.
All the good persons who died before the coming of Jesus had to wait in Abraham's bosom for the coming of the Messiah. He then took they to Heaven.
_____________________
What about Elijah, who was reportedly taken into heaven, though was never baptized?
Lionel:
After the Resurrection he went to Heaven.
God has chosen that all people enter the Catholic Church founded by His Son Jesus Christ. This is the means he chose for salvation for all.Jesus is the Saviour. He saves from Hell. We can accept his Sacrifice and salvation by responding with Catholic Faith.It includes the baptism of water.
______________________
Or, for that matter, St. Joseph? Do you see him in heaven?
Lionel:
Yes I see him in Heaven.
Assuming there are persons who have died this year without the baptism of water, these cases would not be relevant or an exception to the dogma.Since invisible, hypothetical cases are not defacto exceptions in the present times.So all still need the baptism of water for salvation in 2014.
___________________
What about the thief on the cross, of whom our Lord said that today he would be with Him in paradise? Was he a baptized member of the Church in good standing?
Lionel:
We do not know of any Good Thief this year or any one saved as such. Assuming there was one,he would not be an exception to the dogma.
____________________
Oh, Limbo? Even St. Joseph? The Blessed Mother? I think not.
What about catechumens who die before they are baptized and confirmed?
Lionel:
They can be saved.
I do not deny this.
As long as you do not project these cases as an exception to the dogma. I would not object.
___________________
So you're denying that "invincible ignorance" or "baptism of desire" are possible, or just that anyone can know that they're actual?
Lionel:
I accept them as a possibility. I deny that they are exceptions to the dogma.
The irrational inference can be seen in the Balamand Declaration, Catechism of the Catholic Church etc.
ReplyDeleteBalamand Declaration and the Factual Error in the Catechism of the Catholic Church
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/09/balamand-declaration-and-factual-error.html
Traditionalists like Cardinal Malcolm Ranjit do not want to comment.
Now when he was informed the cardinal was not willing to say that the Syllabus of Errors was in perfect agreement with Vatican Council II
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/12/now-when-he-was-informed-cardinal-was.html
The bottom line, as far as I can see, has to do with how "Extra ecclesiam nulla salus" is meant to be understood. Feeney (excommunicated in 1953) apparently held that original sin is wiped away only by the character imprinted on the soul by Baptism.
ReplyDeleteI think you mean "Sacramental water" baptism since it is my understanding either Feeney or his followers denied baptism by desire as taught by the Council of Trent.
Of course Feeney's rigorism depends on there being absolutely no way of salvation for non-Catholics save formal visible membership in the Church which is only possible via water baptism.
Baptism by desire makes the salvation of invincibly ignorant and innocent non-believing persons via extra-ordinary extra-sacramental grace possible.
Thus the denial of baptism by desire and downplaying the council of Trent is needed to justify these doctrinal errors.
CM,
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean when you say: "I accept them [invincible ignorance and baptism by desire] as a possibility. I deny that they are exceptions to the dogma." ???
Do you mean that God may allow the salvation of someone without water baptism even though the dogma of the necessity of water baptism stands? If not, how should a reader make sense of your statement? It seems irrational.
The other thing that makes no sense is your appeal to "sight"; that is, your rejection of hypothetical cases because you cannot "see" them. Do you "see" St. Joseph in heaven? Elijah? What sort of criterion is "sight"? It's not magisterial, so far as I can see, and it surely ain't biblical. Sounds very subjectivist, irrational, almost Lutheran: "... unless I (I MYSELF) am convinced ... in conscience ... etc., etc."
++++++++++++++++++++++
ReplyDeleteRev. Francis Spirago THE CATECHISM EXPLAINED
If baptism by water is impossible, it may be replaced by the baptism of desire, or by the baptism of blood, as in the case of those who suffer martyrdom for the faith of Christ.
The Emperor Valentinian II was on the way to Milan to be baptized when he was assassinated; St. Ambrose said of him that his desire had been the
means of his cleansing. The patriarchs, prophets and holy men of the Old Testament had the baptism of desire; their love of God was ardent, and they wished to do all that He commands. God accepts the will for the deed; in this He manifests His super-abundant loving kindness. But all the
temporal penalties of sin are not remitted by the baptism of desire.
Martyrdom for Christ's sake is the baptism of blood. This the holy innocents received, and the Church commemorates them as saints. All
unbaptized persons who suffer martyrdom for the Christian faith, for some act of Christian virtue, or the fulfilment of a Christian duty, also
received the baptism of blood. Witness St. John Baptist; or St. Emerentiana, who while yet a catechumen, was found by the pagans praying
at St. Agnes' tomb, and was put ton death by them. The Church does not pray for the unbaptized who suffer death for Christ; for He Himself says,
"He that shall lose his life for Me, shall find it." (Matt. x. 39).
+++++++++++++++++
Anonymous
ReplyDeletesaid...
The bottom line, as far as I can see, has to do with how "Extra ecclesiam nulla salus" is meant to be understood. Feeney (excommunicated in 1953) apparently held that original sin is wiped away only by the character imprinted on the soul by Baptism.
Lionel:
The issue is that cases of the baptism of desire are not visible on earth. Those who are saved as such are in Heaven.
So they are not exceptions to all, defacto on earth, needing the baptism of water for salvation.
The theology of the SSPX and the St.Benedict Centers is irrelevant.
They mean well but they would obviously be going in circles.
'Zero cases of something are not exceptions' says the American apologist John Martigioni
_________________________
I think you mean "Sacramental water" baptism since it is my understanding either Feeney or his followers denied baptism by desire as taught by the Council of Trent.
Lionel:
I am not referring to theology.
______________________
Of course Feeney's rigorism depends on there being absolutely no way of salvation for non-Catholics save formal visible membership in the Church which is only possible via water baptism.
Baptism by desire makes the salvation of invincibly ignorant and innocent non-believing persons via extra-ordinary extra-sacramental grace possible.
Lionel:
I am not referring to theology.Even a little boy would know that we cannot see people in Heaven. So this has nothing to do with Catholic theology.
_________________________
Thus the denial of baptism by desire and downplaying the council of Trent is needed to justify these doctrinal errors.
Lionel:
The Council of Trent only referred to implicit desire/baptism of desire. It did not say that these cases are known to us in the present times or that they are exceptions to the traditonal interpretationo of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
_____________________
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteTrady-pooh said...
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean when you say: "I accept them [invincible ignorance and baptism by desire] as a possibility. I deny that they are exceptions to the dogma." ???
Lionel:
I accept that with certain conditions a person could be saved with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance followed by the baptism of water.I accept this in faith. In theory it is possible. It is hypothetical.
To be an exception, these cases would have to be objective,explicit, seen and known.
Hypothethical cases cannot be objective, seen in the flesh exceptions, to all needing the baptism of water for salvation in the present times.
_______________________
Do you mean that God may allow the salvation of someone without water baptism even though the dogma of the necessity of water baptism stands? If not, how should a reader make sense of your statement? It seems irrational.
Lionel:
Theogically I accept that a person can be saved with the baptism of desire followed by the baptism of water in a manner known only to God.
God could send a preacher to him and have him baptised as St. Thomas Aquinas taught.
Or God could send the person back to earth only to be baptised with water, as was the experience of St.Francis Xavier and other saints.
Either way, with or without the baptism of water,these cases are invisible for us in 2014. So they are not exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
__________________________
The other thing that makes no sense is your appeal to "sight"; that is, your rejection of hypothetical cases because you cannot "see" them.
Lionel:
The dogma refers to all being formal members of the Church. Vatican Council II refers to all needing 'faith and baptism' for salvation(AG 7). One can only be a formal member of the Church in the present times.One can receive the baptism of water in only the present times.
So if there was an exception it would have to be there in the present times. I would have to know him and see him.
__________________________
Do you "see" St. Joseph in heaven? Elijah?
Lionel:
After the Resurrection of Jesus everyone needs the baptism of water for salvation. This is what God the Father chose.
So if there was an exception to this teaching in 2014, the case would have to be known.
We do not know of any such exception.
_________________________
What sort of criterion is "sight"? It's not magisterial, so far as I can see, and it surely ain't biblical.
Lionel:
The pre-1949 magisterium said everyone needs the baptism of water for salvation.
For me there is no one in 'sight' who is an exception to this biblical teaching(John 3:5, Mk.16:16).
___________________
Mighty Joe Young said...
ReplyDelete++++++++++++++++++++++
Rev. Francis Spirago THE CATECHISM EXPLAINED
If baptism by water is impossible, it may be replaced by the baptism of desire, or by the baptism of blood, as in the case of those who suffer martyrdom for the faith of Christ.
Lionel:
This is an opinion. Fine. What is important to note is that it refers to something hypothetical.
_____________________
The Emperor Valentinian II was on the way to Milan to be baptized when he was assassinated; St. Ambrose said of him that his desire had been the
means of his cleansing. The patriarchs, prophets and holy men of the Old Testament had the baptism of desire; their love of God was ardent, and they wished to do all that He commands. God accepts the will for the deed; in this He manifests His super-abundant loving kindness. But all the
temporal penalties of sin are not remitted by the baptism of desire.
Lionel:
Fine.If he is Heaven he would have received the baptism of water too.
However even if you say that he did not receive the baptism of water, please do not suggest that this case is an explicit exception to all receiving the baptism of water for salvation in 2014.
____________________
Martyrdom for Christ's sake is the baptism of blood. This the holy innocents received, and the Church commemorates them as saints.
Lionel:
Holy Innoncents yes!
But in 2014 there are no such known cases.
______________________
All unbaptized persons who suffer martyrdom for the Christian faith, for some act of Christian virtue, or the fulfilment of a Christian duty, also received the baptism of blood. Witness St. John Baptist; or St. Emerentiana, who while yet a catechumen, was found by the pagans praying at St. Agnes' tomb, and was put ton death by them. The Church does not pray for the unbaptized who suffer death for Christ; for He Himself says,
"He that shall lose his life for Me, shall find it." (Matt. x. 39).
Lionel:
Yes they are in Heaven with the baptism of blood.If God chose then St.Emerentian, for example, would have also received the baptism of water in a manner known to God.
What is important o note, is that there is no known case of St.Emerentiana this year.So she should not be considered an exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma.
There was no such case also in 1949. So the Holy Office and the Boston ecclesiastical hierarcy made an objective mistake.The baptism of desire and blood and nothing do with the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
ReplyDeleteWrong conclusion also of the St.Benedict Centers and the SSPX (USA) : is this why they are not answering the two questions ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/12/wrong-conclusion-also-of-stbenedict.html
I am not going to try to deal with Lionel’s argumentation. If it seems that he does not quite make sense here, it may be because he is trying to compress the lengthy essays he presents on his blog site Catholic Mission. If you are interested in dealing with Lionel, you may have to familiarize yourself with those essays first. Pack a lunch. Just an FYI.
ReplyDeleteSo here are the only points I intend to make on the issue of extra ecclesiam non solus, for whatever they may be worth.
Before Christ established His church, the gates of heaven had been closed because of Adam’s sin. "Baptism of desire" applied to all of those who died prior to that establishment, worthy of heaven but unable to enter: principally, the "patriarchs, prophets and holy men of the Old Testament," as referred to by good ol' Spirago.
In the years subsequent to Christ's establishment of his Church, the issue is cloudier. The gates of heaven have been thrown open to those souls who merit entrance. But whether any soul lacking baptism by water is allowed to enter heaven IN THIS TIME is beyond my ability to know. True, the need for a baptism of desire would seem to have been superannuated by the sacrifice of Christ. But I have no proof, logical or scientific, and no authoritative NT source, that it was; and there are reasons (such as the example of Anselm offered by Spirago in MJY’s quoted passage) to think perhaps it was not rendered entirely obsolete. So I hazard no opinion, offer no gaudy Balthazaresque "hope." I say nothing at all.
I say the above in opposition to this point in the catechism:
"Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity." (1260)
Much may be supposed, indeed, but this supposition goes a far stretch, and I will not suppose it as more than the merest of possibilities -- since I and the writer of the passage alike do not know it to be any more than that. Our ignorance being invincible on this point, neither of us ought to float a surmise-- in a document the nature of which is taken to be authoritative -- however sizable the ecumenical gains of doing so might be.
Get with the times, folks:
ReplyDeleteIf a person is an adulterer or sodomite or effectively ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but sincerely seeks the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, who am I to judge that he or she can't be saved?
Sound familiar?
Ralph Roister-Doister
ReplyDeletesaid...
I am not going to try to deal with Lionel’s argumentation. If it seems that he does not quite make sense here..
Lionel:
Just be aware that there are no known cases of the baptism of desire in our reality.Zero cases.
There were zero cases also in 1949 and there will be zero cases also in future. Since we humans cannot see people who are in Heaven.
That's all.
The theology in the Catholic Church since 1949 assumes that zero cases are real,visible and personally known.So they reject the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They assume there is known salvation in the Catholic Church.
__________________________
St.Emerentian, for example, would have also received the baptism of water in a manner known to God.
ReplyDeleteThe Canonisation of Saints is an infallible act and the Canonisation of Emerentiana excluded any mention of God directing a secretl baptising of her with water; that is simply an unsubstantiated claim made by you and your ilk and such an assertion has no basis in Catholic Tradition.
So, Lionel, what are you up to her is reminiscent of what the LDS cult does- Baptising folks after they have died.
It seems to me that if Catholic Mission were saying only that nobody, least of all the Catholic Church, has anywhere indicated a known case of baptism of desire, this is really nothing particularly exceptional.
ReplyDeleteIf, on the other hand, he is insisting that the Church in any of her papal or other magisterial statements got something wrong, this would not be so unexceptional but would pose a significant problem.
I think he would agree, and that the latter point is what has him particularly agitated. He thinks he's discovered a case of magisterial error and wants the world to know this -- maybe to get a movement going to correct the Church on this issue?
ReplyDeletePertinacious Papist said...
It seems to me that if Catholic Mission were saying only that nobody, least of all the Catholic Church, has anywhere indicated a known case of baptism of desire, this is really nothing particularly exceptional.
Lionel:
Agreed
If, on the other hand, he is insisting that the Church in any of her papal or other magisterial statements got something wrong, this would not be so unexceptional but would pose a significant problem.
Lionel:
Yes.
I think he would agree, and that the latter point is what has him particularly agitated. He thinks he's discovered a case of magisterial error and wants the world to know this -- maybe to get a movement going to correct the Church on this issue?
Lionel:
Yes I would like the Church to correct it.
Without this error Vatican Council II is traditional its salvation theology and ecclesiology is traditional.
Mighty Joe Young:
ReplyDeleteSt.Emerentiana, for example, would have also received the baptism of water in a manner known to God.
The Canonisation of Saints is an infallible act and the Canonisation of Emerentiana excluded any mention of God directing a secretl baptising of her with water; that is simply an unsubstantiated claim made by you and your ilk and such an assertion has no basis in Catholic Tradition.
Lionel:
Assuming she did receive the baotism of water, or she did not, what has it to do with the dogma ? You are not saying that it is an exception to all needing the baptism of water in 2014.2015 for salvation?
Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7) says all need 'faith and baptism' for salvation. All!
St.Francis Xavier and the saints have experiencesd personally that God has sent people back to earth only to be baptised with water. For some reason he did not condemn to Hell.
_____________________
So, Lionel, what are you up to her is reminiscent of what the LDS cult does- Baptising folks after they have died.
Lionel:
In general all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water (AG 7) with no exceptions.
There cannot be exceptions for us. If there are some persons saved without the baptism of water it would be known only to God.
So we can have our opinion on the baptism of desire but neither of us should claim that it is an exception, in any way, to the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
CM,
ReplyDeleteJust to be clear, are you allowing that there could be cases of baptism by desire and blood, WITHOUT baptism of water, known only to God, which could be exceptions to dogma, but unknown as such by us?
Traddy-pooh
ReplyDeleteJust to be clear, are you allowing that there could be cases of baptism by desire and blood, WITHOUT baptism of water, known only to God, which could be exceptions to dogma, but unknown as such by us?
Lionel:
We are referrinhg to something hypothetical and which is also not dogmatic.Baptism of desire is not part of the de fide teaching of the dogma.Also no magisterial document, except for the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 infers that it must exclude the baptism of water and be an exception to the dogma.
For me, being saved with the baptism of desire or blood,must always include the baptism of water.This is the way God chose for salvation-the baptism of water.
If there is an exception, God being God, you and I would not know.
Catechism of Saint Pius X
ReplyDeleteNecessity of Baptism and Obligations of the Baptised
16 Q. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?
A. Baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation, for our Lord has expressly said: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."
17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
Roman Catechism
ReplyDeleteOrdinarily They Are Not Baptised At Once
On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 assumes that the baptism of desire is always explicit. Upon this irrationality it condemned Fr.Leonard Feeney.
ReplyDeleteBrother Andre Marie MICM says he cannot accept the dejure defacto concept.1
Lionel:
I make the distinction between defacto-dejure, visible-invisible, explicit-implicit etc.
De facto( in fact, in reality) there are no visible cases of the baptism f desire.
De jure we can accept the baptism of desire followed by the baptism of water.
Objectively there are no visible cases of the baptism of desire.
Subjectively, in faith, w can accept it.
Explicitly there are no known cases of the baptism of desire.
Implicitly, theoretically, hypothetically, it is a possibility followed with the baptism of water.
Visibly there are no such cases. They are invisible for us.
Invisible cases cannot be exceptions to all needing 'faith and baptism' in 2014.-2015
So where is the contradiction?
For the St.Benedict Centers, LG 16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance) is visible and so LG 16 and Vatican Council II is a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
For me it is invisible and so is not an exception to the dogma.
The excommunication of Fr.Leonard Feeney was a mistake since they did not make the explicit-implicit ,visible-invisible distinction.
The baptism of desire is always invisible, implicit etc.
The baptism of desire is never visible, explicit, objective etc,.
So it cannot be an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Never ever.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 assumes that the baptism of desire is always explicit etc. Upon this irrationality it condemned Fr.Leonard Feeney.
1
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/12/at-one-point-he-recognised-that-there.html
Radio Replies Rumble and Carty
ReplyDelete803. Then are all the unbaptized lost, whether it be their own fault or not?
No one will ever be lost save through his own fault. Christ is God, and, as God, can work with secondary causes or without them. The ordinary means of salvation is by Baptism, and one who is convinced of the necessity of Baptism yet deliberately refuses to receive it cannot be saved. But God can supply the grace usually given by Baptism, and does so without the actual sacramental rite in two cases. If an unbaptized person dies a martyr for Christ he is credited with Baptism of blood. Baptism of desire counts for the man who repents of his sins and dies with the sincere will to do God's will, yet who, through no fault of his own, does not realize the necessity of actual Baptism by water, or is unable to receive it
A Catechisme OR
ReplyDeleteCHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
BY
Laurence Vaux, B.D.,
CANON REGULAR AND SUB-PRIOR OF ST. MARTINS' MONASTERY, LOUVAIN, SOMETIME WARDEN OF THE COLLEGIATE CHURCH, MANCHESTER.
REPRINTED FROM AN EDITION OF 1583;
OF THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM.
What is Baptism?
Baptism is the most necessary Sacrament of the new Testament, instituted of Christ, specially to wash away original sin, & all other sin done before Baptism. By baptism we be regenerated & born again of water and the holy Ghost, and made Children of God by adoption & heirs of the Kingdom of heaven: Without Baptism: either in act or in will, note can be saved. (Joh. 3, Rom. 6, Gala. 3)
The Douay Catechism of 1649
ReplyDeleteby Henry Tuberville, D.D.
Q. Can a man be saved without baptism?
A. He cannot, unless he have it either actual or in desire, with contrition, or to be baptized in his blood as the holy Innocents were, which suffered for Christ.
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott
ReplyDeleteMemebership of the Church; ...the so-called baptism of blood and baptism of desire, it is true, replace Sacaramental Baptism...
C.M. continues to claim that we can not know about any instance of Baptism of Blood.
ReplyDeleteWell, that is easy to prove wrong.
The Liturgical Year, Dom Gueranger
http://tinyurl.com/lt79tta
Scrolll down to page 410
The Liturgical Year, Dom Gueranger
ReplyDeletehttp://tinyurl.com/lt79tta
Scrolll down to page 410
Yes, we do know of cases of Baptism of Blood.
O,and the same goes for the Feast of the Holy Innocents
And Poor Ludwig Ott is, I guess, in error also_
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott
Memebership of the Church; ...the so-called baptism of blood and baptism of desire, it is true, replace Sacaramental Baptism...
The manual of the Holy Cathoic Church (1906)
JUSTIFICATION WITHOUT BAPTISM.
Q. Why do you say where it can be had? Is it possible in any case to be justified without baptism?
A. Properly speaking, it is impossible to be justified without baptism, as all the above clear texts evince; for where it cannot be had actually, it must, at least, be in desire. Now there are two cases in which a man may be justified and saved, without actually receiving the sacrament of baptism:
First, if an infidel should become acquainted with the true faith of Christ, and embrace it, but be in such circumstances that it was not in his power to get himself baptized, notwithstanding his earnest desire of that Sacrament; if this desire be accompanied with a perfect repentance for his sins, founded in the love of God above all things, this would supply the want of actual baptism and a person dying in such dispositions would surely be saved.
Second, If any person should suffer martyrdom for the faith of Christ, before he had been able to receive baptism, this would also supply the want of actually receiving the Sacrament. In this case the person is baptized in his own blood; in the other case, he is said to be baptized in desire.
Q. What become of young children who die without baptism?
A. If a young child were put to death for the sake of Christ, this would be to it the baptism of blood, and carry it to heaven
So we can have our opinion on the baptism of desire but neither of us should claim that it is an exception, in any way, to the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
ReplyDeleteYou have inverted doctrinal reality by insisting that the personal opinions of Feeney are universally authoritative rather than Tradition and the Doctors of the Church and multi-centuries of Catechisms - including the Catechism of Pope Saint Pius X etc etc
Well, you are at liberty to follow Feeeny but you will never convince those who know the hx of this truth that the personal opinions of Feeney trump all else.
Feeny was in opposition to Tradition, his local Bishop and the Pope in this truth and he was flatout wrong in his personal opinions
Either Feeney is right or Catholic Tradition and Canon Law is right
ReplyDeletehttp://www.traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Information/Baptism_of_Desire.html
More on Feeney heresy
ReplyDeletehttp://www.the-pope.com/feeneyite.html
The shifting apologetical sands that Feeneyism is built upon.
ReplyDeleteThis was not the only priest who caught out Feeney publicly and forced him to reinvent his movement.justifications for his heresy
http://www.christorchaos.com/TheUnBaptizedSaintsDeceptionbyFatherStepanich.htm
OK, M.J has produced enough to make any man possessive of sensus catholicus to reject Feeneyism but owing to the plain and simple truth that Feeneyism is ideological and not theological/doctrinal additional information will not persuade
For lurkers interested in a backgrounder on the Feeney heresy
ReplyDeletehttp://www.stpiusvchapel.org/articles/4-the-case-of-fr-leonard-feeney.html
Traddy pooh
ReplyDeleteknown only to God, which could be exceptions to dogma, but unknown as such by us?
Lionel:
If they are kmowm only to God and unknown to us , for us they cannot be exceptioms to the dogma.
Catechism of Saint Pius X
ReplyDeleteNecessity of Baptism and Obligations of the Baptised
16 Q. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?
A. Baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation, for our Lord has expressly said: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."
Lionel:
Yes in general every one with no exceptions in 2015 needs the baptism of water for salvation.
17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
Lionel:
O.K say it is supplied in some case known to God only.WE do not know who this person is or who will be such a person in future.
_______________________
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott
ReplyDeleteMemebership of the Church; ...the so-called baptism of blood and baptism of desire, it is true, replace Sacaramental Baptism...
Lionel:
Where ? When do they replace the baptism of water? Not in the present times. There are no such cases.
.M. continues to claim that we can not know about any instance of Baptism of Blood.
ReplyDeleteWell, that is easy to prove wrong.
The Liturgical Year, Dom Gueranger
http://tinyurl.com/lt79tta
Scrolll down to page 410
Lionel:
The baptism of water is always given in the present times. It is needed for salvation in the present times. Do you know someone who will be saved as a martyr and who will not need the baptism of water?
No.!?
Radio Replies Rumble and Carty
ReplyDelete803. Then are all the unbaptized lost, whether it be their own fault or not?
No one will ever be lost save through his own fault. Christ is God, and, as God, can work with secondary causes or without them. The ordinary means of salvation is by Baptism, and one who is convinced of the necessity of Baptism yet deliberately refuses to receive it cannot be saved. But God can supply the grace usually given by Baptism, and does so without the actual sacramental rite in two cases. If an unbaptized person dies a martyr for Christ he is credited with Baptism of blood. Baptism of desire counts for the man who repents of his sins and dies with the sincere will to do God's will, yet who, through no fault of his own, does not realize the necessity of actual Baptism by water, or is unable to receive it
Lionel:
According to the dogma Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441 they will all be lost without the baptism of water and Catholic Faith.
If there are some who will be saved since through no fault of their own they did not know the Gospel it will be because God will send someone to baptise them (St.Thomas Aquinas).
We cannot say every one needs the baptism of water for salvation in the present times but some do not . This would be contrary to the traditional teaching and also irrational.
You have inverted doctrinal reality by insisting that the personal opinions of Feeney are universally authoritative
ReplyDeleteLionel:
Fr.Leonard Feeney said every one needs the baptism of water for salvation and there are no exceptions, This is borne out in many of the quotes you have provided here,It supports Feeneyism.
___________________________
rather than Tradition and the Doctors of the Church and multi-centuries of Catechisms - including the Catechism of Pope Saint Pius X etc etc
Lionel:
They support Feeneyism.
Well, you are at liberty to follow Feeeny but you will never convince those who know the hx of this truth that the personal opinions of Feeney trump all else.
Feeny was in opposition to Tradition, his local Bishop and the Pope in this truth and he was flatout wrong in his personal opinions.
Lionel:
Fr.Leonard Feeney's local bishop, Cardinal Cushing was saying that there are known cases of the baptism of desire etc. So for him these cases were visible exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma.
This was heretical, irrational and non traditional.
_______________________
10:02 AM
ReplyDeleteBlogger Mighty Joe Young said...
Either Feeney is right or Catholic Tradition and Canon Law is right
http://www.traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Information/Baptism_of_Desire.html
10:12 AM
Blogger Mighty Joe Young said...
More on Feeney heresy
http://www.the-pope.com/feeneyite.html
Lionel:
Any one who says that the baptism of desire refers to exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is wrong. Since it would infer that these cases of persons now in Heaven are known to us. Otherwise who could they be exceptions?
Or it would mean that we know of some person in the present times who will be saved without the baptism of water.
Cardinal Ratzinger in a subtle way did away with the dogma.
ReplyDeleteThere have been so many reports of Pope Francis doing away with dogmas and doctrine but most Catholics are unaware that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and Pope John Paul II in magisterial documents put aside the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
28.The Church has faithfully preserved what the word of God teaches, not only about truths which must be believed but also about moral action, action pleasing to God (cf. 1Th 4:1); she has achieved a doctrinal development analogous to that which has taken place in the realm of the truths of faith. Assisted by the Holy Spirit who leads her into all the truth (cf. Jn 16:13), the Church has not ceased, nor can she ever cease, to contemplate the "mystery of the Word Incarnate", in whom "light is shed on the mystery of man".-Veritatis Splendor,1993
Cardinal Ratzinger mentioned a development of doctrine on the truths of faith!
For him there was a development of doctrine based on the Fr.Leonard Feeney case in Boston, when the magisterium suggested there were explicit cases of non Catholics saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance.So these explicit cases, for them, were exceptions to the rigoroust interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr;Leonard Feeney and Tradition.
The 'development of the faith' based on an irrationality ( visible to us baptism of desire) was expressed in Vatican Council II.
This was a subtle way of doing away with the dogma. It was by inferring that there were visible cases of the deceased , now in Heaven. Otherwise how could there be exceptions? Invisible cases cannot be exceptions.
This error was not corrected by Pope Benedict XVI or Pope John Paul II.
A major Catholic dogma, called an infallible teaching by Pope Pius XII,was placed under the rug because of alleged being able to see the dead.
Even Archbishop Lefebvre was not aware of the objective error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.Until today today, both groups of traditionalists, SSPX and St.Benedict Centers,are making the same error and are not aware of it.
Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson says Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors
ReplyDeletehttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/archbishop-thomas-egullickson-says.html#links
____________________
Catholic Religious indicate the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made a factual mistake :implicit desire etc is not visible to us
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/catholic-religious-indicate-letter-of.html#links
__________________________
Catholic religious contradict Bishop Fellay : Nostra Aetate is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/catholic-religious-contradict-bishop.html#links
_____________________________________
DEAN OF THEOLOGY AT ST. ANSELM SAYS THERE ARE NO KNOWN EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/10/dean-of-theology-at-st-anselm-says.html
CATHOLIC PRIESTS IN ROME AGREE WITH FR.LEONARD FEENEY: THERE IS NO BAPTISM OF DESIRE THAT WE CAN KNOW OF
ReplyDeletehttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/08/catholic-priests-in-rome-agree-with.html#links
____________________
How can zero cases of something be considered exceptions ?- John Martigioni
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/sspx-only-way-out-now.html#links
________________________
IRRESPECTIVE IF THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE RESULTS IN JUSTIFICATION OR JUSTIFICATON AND SALVATION IT IS NOT AN EXPLICIT EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/irrespective-if-baptism-of-desie.html#links
_________________________
Implicit intention, invincible ignorance and a good conscience (LG 16) in Vatican Council II do not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus –John Martigioni
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/implicit-intention-invincible-ignorance.html#links
_____________________________________
ReplyDeleteROBERT KENNEDY ASKED RICHARD CUSHING TO SUPPRESS FR.LEONARD FEENEY http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2010/07/robert-kennedy-asked-richard-cushing-to.html
FR.LEONARD FEENEY WAS NOT IN HERESY BUT THE ARCHBISHOP OF BOSTON SUSPENDED HIM http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2011/09/frleonard-feeney-was-not-in-heresy-but.html
EWTN REMOVES FR.CORAPI BUT CONTINUES TO TEACH HERESY ON FR.LEONARD FEENEY WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE LOCAL BISHOP
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/09/ewtn-removes-frcorapi-but-continues-to.html
Dear Lionel. It was M.Js intention to bury your support for Feeney's heresy under an avalanche of sources from Tradition while being aware even while doing so that they would be reflexively gainsaid by you.
ReplyDeleteBut MJ doubts you will be able to convince others that Feeney was right and the Catholic church wrong.
Fr Cekada really nailed it on the matter of doctrinal interpretation re Feenye's heresy and Bishop Sanborn (just one of many), rightly, observed the absurdity of Feeney's refusal to accept a free flight to Rome to try and defend his claims.
If he really had "recovered" a key Dogma that had been lost to the entire world and that Dogma had to do with Salvation, then why did he refuse to tell the Church of his discovery?
In any event, it is quite clear that your ideological defense of fenney's heresy also includes rejection of a simple doctrinal principle that MJ tried to illustrate and that is that virtually ever catholic alive at one time (over a millennia) accepted Baptism of blood and baptism of desire as authentic Catholic Dioctrine but there are some who can not accept such a reality.
Of course, MJ, could release another avalanche of evidence (he used to war against the feeneyites on Free Republic for years) but evidence can not extinguish ideology -only grace can do that.
Fr.Leonard Feeney said every one needs the baptism of water for salvation and there are no exceptions, This is borne out in many of the quotes you have provided here,It supports Feeneyism.
ReplyDeleteYour ideology has blinded you to even the simple words placed before you.
You really do seem to think that MJ collected all of those sources and posted them in support of fennel's heresy when the plain and simple truth is that not one of those sources - not one - support fennel's heresy in any way shape or form; rather, the opposite is true.
OK, Lionel. Bye bye
Baptism of Desire and
ReplyDeleteTheological Principles (2000)
by Rev. Anthony Cekada
What principles must Catholics follow to arrive at the truth?
OVER THE YEARS I have occasionally encountered traditionalists, both lay and clerical, who followed the teachings of the late Rev. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center concerning the axiom “Outside the Church there is no salvation.” Those who fully embrace the Feeneyite position reject the common Catholic teaching about baptism of desire and baptism of blood.
Catholics, however, are not free to reject this teaching, be-cause it comes from the Church’s universal ordinary magisterium. Pius IX stated that Catholics are required to believe those teachings that theologians hold “belong to the faith,” and to subject themselves to those forms of doctrine commonly held as “theological truths and conclusions.”
In 1998, I photocopied material on baptism of desire and baptism of blood from the works of twenty-five pre-Vatican II theologians (including two Doctors of the Church), and assembled it into a dossier. All, of course, teach the same doctrine.
Behind the Feeneyite rejection of this doctrine lies a rejection of the principles that Pius IX laid down, principles that form the basis for the whole science of theology. He who rejects these criteria rejects the foundations of Catholic theology and constructs a peculiar theology of his own — one where his own interpreta-tion of papal pronouncements is every bit as arbitrary and idio- syncratic as a free-thinking Baptist’s interpretation of the Bible. It is utterly pointless to argue with such a person over baptism of blood and baptism of desire, because he does not accept the only criteria on which a theological issue must be judged.
Mighty Joe Young
ReplyDeleteI had been in contact with Fr.Cekada a few years back via the Internet. He thought those who support Feeneyism were in mortal sin. He has pulled down that report.
_____________________
Mighgty Joe Young:
said...
Baptism of Desire and
Theological Principles (2000)
by Rev. Anthony Cekada
What principles must Catholics follow to arrive at the truth?
OVER THE YEARS I have occasionally encountered traditionalists, both lay and clerical, who followed the teachings of the late Rev. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center concerning the axiom “Outside the Church there is no salvation.” Those who fully embrace the Feeneyite position reject the common Catholic teaching about baptism of desire and baptism of blood.
Lionel:
The St.Benedict Centers accept the baptism of desire followed with the baptism of water.
________________________
Catholics, however, are not free to reject this teaching, be-cause it comes from the Church’s universal ordinary magisterium. Pius IX stated that Catholics are required to believe those teachings that theologians hold “belong to the faith,”...
Lionel:
Yes they are expected to accept the baptism of desire as a possibility, known only to God.
They are not expected to accept the baptism of desire as refering to known cases in the present times.This would also be irrational.
_______________________
In 1998, I photocopied material on baptism of desire and baptism of blood from the works of twenty-five pre-Vatican II theologians (including two Doctors of the Church), and assembled it into a dossier. All, of course, teach the same doctrine.
Lionel:
Fr.Cekada assumed that the baptism of desire referred to visible and known cases in the present times. This is how he interpreted the statements of those theologians.
I think he now realizes that it was an error.
____________________
Behind the Feeneyite rejection of this doctrine lies a rejection of the principles that Pius IX laid down, principles that form the basis for the whole science of theology.
Lionel:
To create theology based on us being able to see the dead now in Heaven is irrational.It is also non traditional.
__________________________
He who rejects these criteria rejects the foundations of Catholic theology and constructs a peculiar theology of his own...
Lionel:
It is a 'peculiar' theology which says every one needs the baptism of water in the present times but some do not. This is a contradiction.It is a new theology.
It is a peculiar theology which infers that we can see the dead on earth saved with the baptism of desire.
It is a peculiar theology which comes to the conclusion that the dead whom we see on earth are visible, objective exceptions to the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
_________________
Mighty Joe Young said...
ReplyDeleteFr.Leonard Feeney said every one needs the baptism of water for salvation and there are no exceptions, This is borne out in many of the quotes you have provided here,It supports Feeneyism.
Here are some examples of Mighty Joe Young supporting Feeneyism:-
Catechism of Saint Pius X
Necessity of Baptism and Obligations of the Baptised
16 Q. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?
A. Baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation, for our Lord has expressly said: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."
___________________
Catechisme OR
CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
BY Laurence Vaux, B.D.,
Baptism is the most necessary Sacrament of the new Testament, instituted of Christ, specially to wash away original sin, & all other sin done before Baptism...
____________________
Mighty Joe Young said...
ReplyDeleteDear Lionel. It was M.Js intention to bury your support for Feeney's heresy under an avalanche of sources...
Lionel:
There is not a single quote from Tradition before 1949 which says that the baptism of desire is known and visible to us and so is an exception to the centuries old interpretation of the dogma.
Not a single quote! Not a single source.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was a break with Tradition.
_____________________
But MJ doubts you will be able to convince others that Feeney was right and the Catholic church wrong.
Lionel:
I have quoted above an American Archbishop, a Benedictine Dean of Theology and an American apologist.They agree with me.
There are no known exceptions to the dogma. This is something fundamental. Even Catholics with no knowledge of theology agree.
______________________
Fr Cekada really nailed it on the matter of doctrinal interpretation re Feenye's heresy and Bishop Sanborn (just one of many), rightly,...
Lionel:
Bishop Sanborn, the CMRI priests and Fr.Cekada assumed that the baptism of desire was an exception to the dogma. This is irrational.This is also the mistake of the sedevantists MHFM.
____________________
If he really had "recovered" a key Dogma that had been lost to the entire world and that Dogma had to do with Salvation, then why did he refuse to tell the Church of his discovery?
Lionel:
He affirmed the dogma until death.He refused to recant.
In a prepared statement for the press the former Jesuit (Fr.Leonard Feeney) added: "The conscience difficulty is that the diocese of Boston, under the auspices of Archbishop Cushing, and Boston College, under the auspices of Father John J. McEloney, S.J., both notably ignorant in the field of Catholic theology ... are teaching that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church." - Father Feeney Is Dismissed From Jesuit Order by Rome
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1949/10/29/father-feeney-is-dismissed-from-jesuit/
_______________________
In any event, it is quite clear that your ideological defense of fenney's heresy also includes rejection of a simple doctrinal principle...
Lionel:
I accept the baptism of desire. I have not rejected it. For me it is compatible with the dogma.
_____________________
Of course, MJ, could release another avalanche of evidence (he used to war against the feeneyites on Free Republic for years) but evidence can not extinguish ideology -only grace can do that.
Lionel:
There is no evidence.None of his quotes say that the baptism of desire is objective and known in personal cases. So how can he infer that there are exceptions to the dogma.Ghosts are exceptions for him? This is evidence?
Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Still River, MA accept novices who have to repeat the same irrationality as the liberal communities : approved by the bishop of Worcester
ReplyDeletehttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/12/slaves-of-immaculate-heart-of-mary.html
If the Bishops of Argentine and Albano cannot accept Vatican Council II without the irrational inference, then it is a doctrinal issue
ReplyDeletehttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/if-bishops-of-argentine-and-albano.html#links
__________________
The SSPX must respond to Bishop Semeraro by citing Catholic doctrine on Vatican Council II which supports their position
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/the-sspx-must-respond-to-bishop.html
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/11/another-bishop-excommunicates-faithful.html
____________________
Pope Francis, Cardinal Muller and Cardinal Ladaria are refusing to interpret Vatican Council II without the irrationality
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/pope-francis-cardinal-muller-and.html
______________________
ReplyDeleteSlaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary : Vatican Council II does not contradict 'the rigorist interpretation' of the dogma
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/12/slaves-of-immaculate-heart-of-mary_30.html
___________
___________
Some have tendentiously (ok, not mere bias but actual deception/lies) averred that St. Thomas Aquinas taught the necessity of Baptism of water as the sole way to salvation whereas he taught this:
ReplyDeleteSumma Theologica, Part IIIa, Q. 68)
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm
Owing to a false ideology pertinacity, these sources/facts must be constantly restated publicly to protect the innocent Christian from wandering into, and then spiritually drowning, in the heretical quicksand of Feeneyism.
On EENS, Feeney was a heretic and Tradition is orthodox and it is hard to disagree with the conclusion of Fr Cekada that those who hold to and promote the Feenyite heresy are in mortal sin.
To create theology based on us being able to see the dead now in Heaven is irrational.It is also non traditional.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, what'n'hell ARE you talking about?
Where in hell did you unearth this worry stone of yours that you are obsessively self-soothingly stroking ?
No wonder you never make any sense at all if that is how you think Catholic Doctrine was created - based upon our ability to see the dead in Heaven?
Yeah, M.J has read your blog (where you lifted a partial quote from IANS from a thread at the now defunct CAI blog; MJ knows IANS and MJ knows that IANS had a LOT longer response than the radically truncated version you pasted on your blog) where you also, repeatedly, go on and on and on and on about seeing dead people as though that has any even remote connection with either feeny's heresy or the Holy Office's letter in response to his heresy.
And, yes, everybody knows that the Pope remitted his excommunication as an act of charity to an old and dying man but that act had not one damn thing to do with his heresy being acceptable, to day nothing about it being authoritative and against which all Tradition must be judged.
Lord have Mercy...M.J. knows that to even ask these simple straightforward questions is to risk an uncountable number of non-responsive posts
O, and who even cares if Feeny's fiends assert that V2 did not contradict Feeney?
Feeny had NO teaching authority; do you even understand that simple truth?
You clearly do not as you judge Catholic Tradition according to Feeney's heresy.
O, and another thing - how was MJ able to copy and paste from Fr Cekada if after he putatively talked with you he took down that which MJ posted?
I had been in contact with Fr.Cekada a few years back via the Internet. He thought those who support Feeneyism were in mortal sin. He has pulled down that report
Yeah, he pulled down the report MJ copied and pasted from right in this thread...
Pull the other one.
Said otherwise, you have absolutely no proof such a conversation even took place to say nothing about presenting us evidence Fr Cekada agrees with you.
But, You do have a history of making-up stuff and posting partial quotes to give the appearance of others agreeing with you - a practice all can see in here on this thread where you continue to claim that what MJ posted actually supports your argument.
A bit more to come on this
Lionel avers: For me, being saved with the baptism of desire or blood,must always include the baptism of water.
ReplyDeleteThen you are a clear and manifest heretic. Period.
ReplyDeleteMighty Joe Young :
Some have tendentiously (ok, not mere bias but actual deception/lies) averred that St. Thomas Aquinas taught the necessity of Baptism of water as the sole way to salvation whereas he taught this:
Summa Theologica, Part IIIa, Q. 68)
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm
Lionel:
There are quotations on the internet where he affirms the traditional dogma. I don't have to off hand.
Then there are quotations on the internet in which it is alleged that the 'man in the forest' is an exception to all needing to enter the Church. St.Thomas Aquinas mentioned the man in the forest.
They imply that the man in the forest a hypothetical case is an objective exception to the traditional statement of St.Thomas on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Owing to a false ideology pertinacity, these sources/facts must be constantly restated publicly to protect the innocent Christian from wandering into, and then spiritually drowning, in the heretical quicksand of Feeneyism.
Lionel:
When St.thomas affirmed the dogma, he was supporting Feeneyism too, as in some of the quotes you have placed here.
On EENS, Feeney was a heretic and Tradition is orthodox and it is hard to disagree with the conclusion of Fr Cekada that those who hold to and promote the Feenyite heresy are in mortal sin.
Lionel:
I think since Fr.Cekada wrote that article he has changed his view.
Please confirm it with him.
Please ask him to respond to the comments on this blogpost.
Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary religious formation
ReplyDeleteBrother Andre Marie MICM Prior of the St.Benedict Center Richmond, N.H has not denied that like the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Still River, MA , they accept novices who have to repeat the same irrationality as the liberal communities in the USA. This is approved by their respective bishops in Manchester and Worcester. This is part of the religious formation at the two St.Benedict Centers.
Novices have to allege that there are exceptions in Vatican Council II to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
They have to endorse that Lumen Gentium 16 refers to persons saved in invincible ignorance or with a good conscience and these persons are visible and known to us.To assume that the dead in Heaven are visible and known to us in particular cases is a false premise an irrational propostion.How can the dead be living exceptions? And if the dead are not living exceptions to the dogma then how can it be said that Vatican Council II (LG 16 etc) contradicts the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney?
Then the novices have to endorse the false conclusion. They have to claim that these dead -and- visible- for- us people, now in Heaven, are visible exceptions to all needing the baptism of water in 2014-2015 for salvation. So for the novices, Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. 1
Brother Andre Marie removed a comment of mine in which I asked him if the religious formation at St.Benedict center N.H was the same as that of the community in Still Rivger,MA.
I also mentioned that Brother Thomas Augustine MICM, the Prior at that centre has not commented on the blogpost 'Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Still River, MA accept novices who have to repeat the same irrationality as the liberal communities : approved by the bishop of Worcester'. He possibly agrees with me or does not understand what I am saying and does not want to discuss it.-Lionel Andrades
http://catholicism.org/ad-rem-no-241.html
Here is Aquinas I answer that, The sacrament or Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free-will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. 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. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for."
Lionel avers: There are quotations on the internet where he affirms the traditional dogma. I don't have to off hand.
Put up or shut up for CLEARLY Aquinas teaches what the Holy Office teaches. Lionel, if you think Aquinas contradicted himself on BOB and BOD, YOU must show us in HIS own words and not YOUR false paraphrase.
Lionel avers
I think since Fr.Cekada wrote that article he has changed his view.
Please confirm it with him.
Please ask him to respond to the comments on this blogpost.
You make an unsubstantiated claim yet you expect others to prove your unsubstantiated claim is accurate.
Stop it; just stop it, Lionel.
It has given MJ no pleasure to confront you so stridently but you simply must be confronted and corrected because you have been doing this all over the internet for years and you are spreading the Feeney heresy in places where the innocent may be tempted to believe you.
MJ prays for you that you will see the truth of the matter and stop spreading this insane heresy that makes God seem as though He is a Crypto- Calvinist
Father Fenton on Suprema Haec Sacra
ReplyDeleteTHE HOLY OFFICE LETTER
SUPREMA HAEC SACRA
...
The Holy Office letter also teaches that "no implicit intention can produce its effect [of eternal salvation] unless the man has supernatural faith." Here it is imperative to remember that the document speaks of that faith which is defined by the Vatican Council as "the supernatural virtue by which, with the impulse and aid of God's grace, we believe the things He has revealed to be true, not because of their intrinsic truth, seen in the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God Himself revealing, Who can neither be deceived nor deceive." This is the faith which the same Vatican Council described as "the beginning of human salvation".
In the text of the Suprema haec sacra we are reminded that the need for this supernatural faith holds true even where there is merely an implicit desire to enter the Church. In other words, it is possible to have a man attain salvation when he has no clear-cut notion of the Church, and desires to enter it only insofar as he wills to do all the things God wills that he should do. The desire to enter the Church can be implicit in the desire to please God and to achieve salvation. But, at the same time, there must be some explicit supernatural truth, actually revealed by God and actually accepted as true on the authority of God revealing, on the part of every man who attains eternal salvation.
When the desire is merely implicit, then a man's faith in the divinely revealed truths about the Church is likewise implicit. The point made here by the Holy Office letter is precisely that there must be some definite and explicit content to any act of genuine supernatural faith. If a man is to be saved, he must accept as true, on the authority of God revealing, the teaching which God has communicated to the world as His public and supernatural message.
The following, then, are the explicit lessons brought out in the text of the Suprema haec sacra:
(1) The teaching that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church is a dogma of the Catholic faith.
(2) This dogma has always been taught, and will always be taught, infallibly by the Church's magisterium.
(3) The dogma must be understood and explained as the Church's magisterium understands and explains it.
(4) The Church is necessary for salvation with both a necessity of precept and a necessity of means.
(5) Because the Church is necessary for salvation with the necessity of precept, any person who knows the Church to have been divinely instituted by Our Lord and yet refuses to enter it or to remain within it cannot attain eternal salvation.
(6) The Church is a general and necessary means for salvation, not by reason of any intrinsic necessity, but only by God's Own institution, that is, because God in His merciful wisdom has established it as such.
(7) In order that a man may be saved "within" the Church, it is not always necessary that he belong to the Church in re, actually as a member, but it can sometimes be enough that he belong to it as one who desires or wills to be in it. In other words, it is possible for one who belongs to the Church only in desire or in voto to be saved.
(8) It is possible for this desire of entering the Church to be effective, not only when it is explicit, but also (when the person is invincibly ignorant of the true Church) even when that desire or votum is merely implicit.
(9) The Mystici Corporis reproved both the error of those who teach the impossibility of salvation for those who have only an implicit desire of entering the Church, and the false doctrine of those who claim that men may find salvation equally in every religion.
(10) No desire to enter the Church can be effective for salvation unless it is enlightened by supernatural faith and animated or motivated by perfect charity.
ReplyDeleteFather William Most, combatted the heresy of Feeney and in doing so he produced this crazy ass quote from Fr Feeney:
Thomas M. Sennott, They Fought the
Good Fight, Catholic Treasures, Monrovia CA. 1987, pp. 305-06):
"To say that God would never permit anyone to be punished eternally unless he had incurred the guilt of voluntary sin is nothing short of Pelagianism... . If God cannot punish eternally a human being who has not incurred the guilt of voluntary sin, how then, for example can He punish eternally babies who die unbaptized?
OK, that is not only an insane lie, it is mean-spirited lunacy. Feeney's God is evil.
O, and one last thing. What evidence is there that Feeney was actually reconciled in that ceremony in that book store? As Michael Mazza noted
After Archbishop Cushing suspended Fr. Feeney and placed the Center under interdict, nearly all of the St. Benedict Center community's one hundred members formed a "religious order" called the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and then moved out to Still River, Massachusetts, where the community eventually broke down into warring factions, a few of which have been since reconciled to the Church. Fr. Feeney himself, beset with the mental and physical ailments of old age, was reportedly "reconciled" to the Church on November 22, 1972 in the St. Thomas More Bookstore in Cambridge, with the help of a group of members of the Center and some very indulgent diocesan officials. These officials neither pressed Fr. Feeney for a recantation of his theological errors nor even an apology for the harm he may have caused the faithful. After the meeting, curiously enough, Fr. Feeney reportedly published a letter claiming that he had retracted nothing and still believed in the formula "no salvation outside the Church" as he always had. In any case, Fr. Leonard J. Feeney died at the age of 80 on January 30, 1978 and is buried in the Center's graveyard in Still River. The inscription on his tombstone reads .
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=963
ReplyDeleteMighty Joe Young
said...
To create theology based on us being able to see the dead now in Heaven is irrational.It is also non traditional.
Seriously, what'n'hell ARE you talking about?
Lionel:
I am referring to the common theology. The one also held by you.
You say that there are exceptions the to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Any one who says that there are exceptions to the dogma is implying that he can see the dead who are in Heaven who are now exceptions to all needing to enter the Church in 2014.
For there to be exceptions for yuu the exceptions would have to be known. If there are no known cases how can there be exceptions?
This was the error of Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Holy Office in 1949.
So when you refer to Feeneyism this is the irrational theology you have accepted.
Feeneyism does not mean the same thing for me. Feeneyism for me is aying that there are no known exceptions to the traditional teaching on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.There are no visible and known cases of the baptism of desire etc.
______________________
Where in hell did you unearth this worry stone of yours that you are obsessively self-soothingly stroking ?
Lionel:
I am the one who notices it and calls your attention to it. You are not aware that when you say that there are exceptions to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney you are implying that you can see the dead. Then upon this irrationality you have created a theology(Feeneyism).
_______________________
No wonder you never make any sense at all if that is how you think Catholic Doctrine was created - based upon our ability to see the dead in Heaven?
Lionel:
Fr.Leonard Feeney held the traditional doctrine until the Holy Office approved of a new version based on alleged de facto exceptions.
_____________________________
Yeah, M.J has read your blog (where you lifted a partial quote from IANS from a thread at the now defunct CAI blog; MJ knows IANS and MJ knows that IANS had a LOT longer response than the radically truncated version you pasted on your blog) where you also, repeatedly, go on and on and on and on about seeing dead people as though that has any even remote connection with either feeny's heresy or the Holy Office's letter in response to his heresy.
Lionel:
I don't know what is IANS etc but anyway I hope he realizes the irrationality of his theology.
___________________
And, yes, everybody knows that the Pope remitted his excommunication as an act of charity to an old and dying man but that act had not one damn thing to do with his heresy being acceptable, to day nothing about it being authoritative and against which all Tradition must be judged.
Lionel:
How can he be in heresy for repeating what was held in the Church for centuries ? Are those popes of the past too in heresy?
And is is not heresy to say that every one does not need to enter the Church because there are exceptions ?
____________________
Continued
Mighty Joe Young:
ReplyDeleteLord have Mercy...M.J. knows that to even ask these simple straightforward questions is to risk an uncountable number of non-responsive posts
Lionel:
Feeneyism, as a theology for you, with known exceptions is irrational.Think about it.
_____________________
O, and who even cares if Feeny's fiends assert that V2 did not contradict Feeney?
Lionel;
The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary interpret Vatican Council II with the same irrationality. They assume that LG 16 etc refer to known and visible cases. So for them Vatican Council II is a break with the past.This is the same interpretation as the SSPX and the sedevacantists.They are part of the problem here.
_________________________
Feeny had NO teaching authority; do you even understand that simple truth?
Lionel:
The Bishop was in heresy for implying that there are known exceptions to the dogma.
He used his ecclesistic powers against the priest in his diocese to silence him.
Fr.Feeney was not teaching anythng new.
___________________________
You clearly do not as you judge Catholic Tradition according to Feeney's heresy.
Lionel:
How can he be in heresy when there are no known exceptions to the dogma and no text before 1949 claims there are exceptions.
You have to imply that the baptism of desire is known and visible to us, for it to be an exception or relevant to the dogma.
________________________
O, and another thing - how was MJ able to copy and paste from Fr Cekada if after he putatively talked with you he took down that which MJ posted?
Lionel:
He removed the post after our communication via the internet.He realized that he had no proof of the baptism of desire being known and visible to us for it to be an exception to the dogma.I checked it at that time.
________________________
I had been in contact with Fr.Cekada a few years back via the Internet. He thought those who support Feeneyism were in mortal sin. He has pulled down that report
Yeah, he pulled down the report MJ copied and pasted from right in this thread...
Pull the other one.
Said otherwise, you have absolutely no proof such a conversation even took place to say nothing about presenting us evidence Fr Cekada agrees with you.
Lionel:
Not only Fr.Cekada there had been so many Catholics on the Internet who were critical of 'Feeneyism'.They are no more there. I have been sending them information regulalrly on this issue over the years.
_____________________
But, You do have a history of making-up stuff and posting partial quotes to give the appearance of others agreeing with you - a practice all can see in here on this thread where you continue to claim that what MJ posted actually supports your argument.
Lionel:
I don't know who is MJ.
I have mentioned that Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson, Fr.Stepehn Visintin, Dean of Theology at the Pontifical University of St.Anslem, Rome and the American apologist John Martigioni agree with me. There are also many priests in Rome who agree with me . I have quoted them on my blog.Recently an FSSP priest in Rome Fr.Marco Hausmann agreed with me.
I am not saying anything extraordinary and neither are they.It is a fact of life that we cannot see or know exceptions to the dogma.
______________________
Mighty Joe Young said...
Lionel avers: For me, being saved with the baptism of desire or blood,must always include the baptism of water.
Lionel:
Yes are are referring to a hypothetical case. This is not a defide teaching that the baptism of desire must include or exclude the baptism of water.
It is a de fide teaching which says all need the baptism of water for salvation. This was the dogmatic teaching.
______________________
Then you are a clear and manifest heretic. Period.
Lionel
I affirm the dogma extra eccesiam nulla salus and also the baptism of desire , the latter not being an exception to the dogma. This is rational and traditional for me.
ReplyDeleteSt.Benedict Centers - misleading
How can the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary say that they accept the rigorist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus and that they also accept Vatican Council II ?
This is providing misinformation.
Since you are either accepting one and rejecting the other.You can't have it both ways.So they should say that they are in reality rejecting Vatican Council II since they affirm the rigorist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus-or vice versa.
Tantamblogo writes on the Blog for Dallas Area Catholics that he met a religious sister of the St.Benedict Center, Still River,MA.He was impressed. She did not seem to affirm the 'the rigorist interpretation' of extra eclesiam nulla salus. He would also be impressed with the community at Richmond N.H Since they accept Vatican Council II and reject the dogma.
When I refer to Vatican Council II above it is the Council interpreted with the false proposition and false conclusion. This is their understanding of Vatican Council II.This is approved by their respective bishops in the diocese of Worcester and Manchester,USA. The false premise and conclusion in the interpretation of Vatican Council II, allows the bishops to reject the traditional interpretation of the dogma according to Church Councils, the popes, Vatican Council II (AG 7) and Fr.Leonard Feeney.
So in reality the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, like their bishops, reject the dogma since for them Vatican Council is interpreted as a break with the dogma i.e with the false premise and false conclusion.
They do not know that there is an option.They could still affirm the traditional dogma and Vatican Council II if they do not use the irrational premise /proposition in the interpretation.
So for the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary to say presently that they accept the traditional interpretation of the dogma- is misleading.
In theory yes, in practise no. Yes to the doctrine, no to the 'praxis'. Yes in principle, in reality, though , there is a 'development of doctrine'.Vatican Council II is the evidence.
1.I ask them to answer the two simple questions which express their irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II. They will not.
2.I ask them to comment on Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson, Rev. Fr.P. Stefano Visintin OSB, Dean of the Faculty of Theology at the Pontifical University St.Anselm, Rome and the apologist John Martigioni saying that there are no known cases of the baptism of desire..They will not respond.I mention that they agree with me. There is no comment.
3.I ask them if their theology is based on an empirical vision of the dead -saved with the baptism of desire.There is no answer.
4.I mention that novices at the St.Benedict Center have to use an irrational premise and conclusion in the interpretation of Vatican Council II approved by the bishop. They will not deny it.
5.I tell them that I interpret Vatican Council II in agreement with the dogma and they don't ask me to explain myself and neither do they disagree with me, with specifics.
6.They say the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance must be followed by the baptism of water and I agree with them. Can they interpret LG 16,LG 8,UR 3,NA 2 in the same way? Any one who is saved according to LG 16,UR 3 etc would also be saved with the baptism of water?
With so much confusion they are unintentionally misleading people on Vatican Council II relative to the dogma.-Lionel Andrades
ReplyDeleteSt.Benedict Centers USA keep affirming Vatican Council II but not like the SSPX or the liberal bishops
I think that the St.Benedict Centers (Richmond N.H and Still River, MA) must continue to affirm Vatican Council II. They must affirm Pope Benedict's hermeneutic of continuity but with no passages in the Council contradicting 'the rigorist interpretation' of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
They have to avoid the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) position of rejecting Vatican Council II and also stay away from the other extreme i.e the liberals interpreting the Council with an irrational proposition( premise) which results in a false conclusion, which is a break with Tradition.
This would also mean rejecting the interpretation of the Council according to the bishops of Worcester, Manchester and Boston.
So if grilled from either side the St.Benedict Centers, the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary would say that they accept Vatican Council II in its entirety, and in agreement with the interpretation of the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.There is no ambiguity for them. There are no passages which contradict traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Things couldn't be better for them.
They are as my friend Ian would say, 'on a good wicket'.
They have to explain :-
1.LG 16,LG8,UR 3,NA 2 etc refer to those saved as such and with the baptism of water.
2.Vatican Council II no where says that these cases must be saved without the baptism of water.Since they are hypothetical cases for us, we can assume traditionally, that they will be saved with the baptism of water.
3.Since they are hypothetical cases they are known only to God and so cannot be defacto exceptions in 2015, to all needing the baptism of water and Catholic Faith (AG 7) for salvation,
So all the loose ends are tied. Vatican Council II is again for us rational and traditional and supporting Fr.Leonard Feeney and the original St.Benedict Center.
Pope Francis is our pope and he expects us to accept Vatican Council II. We do!!!
-Lionel Andrades
Father William Most, combatted the heresy of Feeney
ReplyDeleteLionel:
Fr.William Most assumed that there are exceptions to the dogma which are known and visible to us.So he was wrong at the onset.His writings then went on to support this irrational proposition.
Otherwise he was a good apologist and I appreciate his work.
_______________________
O, and one last thing. What evidence is there that Feeney was actually reconciled in that ceremony in that book store? As Michael Mazza noted
Lionel:
Michael Mazza makes the same error as Fr.Most. So I would be aware of this when reading what he writes.
He is trying to defend an irrational position.
________________________
After Archbishop Cushing suspended Fr. Feeney and placed the Center under interdict,
Lionel:
Yes, they were placed under interdict for not saying that there were known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They would not say that the ghosts Cardinal Cushing could see were also visible to them.
____________________
nearly all of the St. Benedict Center community's one hundred members formed a "religious order" called the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and then moved out to Still River, Massachusetts, where the community eventually broke down into warring factions, a few of which have been since reconciled to the Church.
Lionel_
They are reconciled with liberal bishops who allege that in Vatican Council II there are known and visible exceptions to the dogma.So the bishops of Boston, Worcester and Manchester reject the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus because of allegedly being able to see deceased-exceptions to the dogma. This passes for Catholicism in New England,USA.
_______________________
Father Fenton on Suprema Haec Sacra
ReplyDeleteTHE HOLY OFFICE LETTER
SUPREMA HAEC SACRA...
The Holy Office letter also teaches that "no implicit intention can produce its effect [of eternal salvation] unless the man has supernatural faith."
Lionel:
Yes and this has nothing to do with the dogma.
__________________
Here it is imperative to remember that the document speaks of that faith which is defined by the Vatican Council as "the supernatural virtue by which, with the impulse and aid of God's grace, we believe the things He has revealed to be true, not because of their intrinsic truth, seen in the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God Himself revealing, Who can neither be deceived nor deceive." This is the faith which the same Vatican Council described as "the beginning of human salvation".
Lionel:
Again I would say that this is acceptable but please don't posit it as an exception.
___________________________
In the text of the Suprema haec sacra we are reminded that the need for this supernatural faith holds true even where there is merely an implicit desire to enter the Church.
Lionel:
Fine.
___________________________
In other words, it is possible to have a man attain salvation when he has no clear-cut notion of the Church, and desires to enter it only insofar as he wills to do all the things God wills that he should do...
Lionel:
Fine accepted as a hypothetical case.Though not relevant to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
_____________________
When the desire is merely implicit, then a man's faith in the divinely revealed truths about the Church is likewise implicit...
Lionel:
O.K. We get the point.But when the Holy Office Letter infers that this case is an exception to the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center then it is irrational and non traditional.
_____________________
If a man is to be saved, he must accept as true, on the authority of God revealing, the teaching which God has communicated to the world as His public and supernatural message.
The following, then, are the explicit lessons brought out in the text of the Suprema haec sacra:
(1) The teaching that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church is a dogma of the Catholic faith.
Lionel:
Yes and the dogma does not mention any exceptions and is in agreement with Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.The letter supports Fr.Feeney here.
_____________________
(2) This dogma has always been taught, and will always be taught, infallibly by the Church's magisterium.
Lionel:
Yes and it did not mention any exception.
__________________________
(3) The dogma must be understood and explained as the Church's magisterium understands and explains it.
Lionel:
Yes according to the Church's magisterium before 1949.
After 1949 it is inferred that there are known and visible exceptions to the traditional interpretation.
______________________
(4) The Church is necessary for salvation with both a necessity of precept and a necessity of means.
Lionel:
Yes and this has nothing to do with the interpretation of the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney. Since only God can distinguish between the necessity of precept and means.Everyone needs the baptism of water in the present times for salvation and we do not know any exception according to necessity of precept or means.
______________________
Continued
CONTINUED
ReplyDelete5) Because the Church is necessary for salvation with the necessity of precept, any person who knows the Church to have been divinely instituted by Our Lord and yet refuses to enter it or to remain within it cannot attain eternal salvation.
Lionel:
This would be judged by God.The Holy Office infers that there are visible exceptions so it mentions necessity of precept and means.This is as if we can know such cases in real life.
(6) The Church is a general and necessary means for salvation, not by reason of any intrinsic necessity, but only by God's Own institution, that is, because God in His merciful wisdom has established it as such.
Lionel:
According to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II (AG 7) all need faith and baptism to avoid the fires of Hell. This is how God chose it.
Presently the majority of mankind are on the way to Hell since they die without faith and baptism.
Protestants and Orthodox Christians have the baptism of water but not Catholic Faith which includes the interpretation of the Gospels, the faith and moral teachings of the Church and the Sacraments through which God saves.
________________________
CONTINUED
CONTINUED
ReplyDelete(7) In order that a man may be saved "within" the Church, it is not always necessary that he belong to the Church in re, actually as a member, but it can sometimes be enough that he belong to it as one who desires or wills to be in it. In other words, it is possible for one who belongs to the Church only in desire or in voto to be saved.
Lionel:
Yes it is possible hypothetically,but defacto every one needs to be a formal member of the Church(with faith and baptism) for salvation. This is the teaching of the dogma and Vatican Council II(AG 7) and we do not, and cannot, know of any objective exceptions.
This should have been clarified by the Holy Office -unless they assumed that there are defacto exceptions.
_______________________
(8) It is possible for this desire of entering the Church to be effective, not only when it is explicit, but also (when the person is invincibly ignorant of the true Church) even when that desire or votum is merely implicit.
Lionel:
Yes and this case would not be a defacto exception to all needing to be formal members of the Church for salvation, as held by Fr.Leonard Feeney.
___________________
(9) The Mystici Corporis reproved both the error of those who teach the impossibility of salvation for those who have only an implicit desire of entering the Church, and the false doctrine of those who claim that men may find salvation equally in every religion.
Lionel:
'the impossibility of salvation for those who have only an implicit desire of entering the Church'.This is a hypothetical case. It would always be unknown and invisible for us. So what has this to do with the traditional interpretation of the dogma according to the St.Benedict Center and Fr.Leonard Feeney?
_________________________
(10) No desire to enter the Church can be effective for salvation unless it is enlightened by supernatural faith and animated or motivated by perfect charity.
Lionel:
O.K but here the Holy Office implies that this is an objective case and is relevant.
They should have clarified here that they were referring to a hypothetical person.
They seemed confused and let the confusion pass on to the rest of the Catholic Church.
__________________________
concluded
January 7, 2015
ReplyDeleteIf you consider the Holy Office or Fr.Leonard Feeney in heresy determines how you interpret Vatican Council II
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/01/if-you-consider-holy-office-or.html
http://imamanamateurbrainsurgeon.blogspot.it/2014/12/mr-andrades-and-eens-1.html#comment-form