tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post3181870308829741462..comments2024-03-28T16:16:51.062-04:00Comments on Musings of a Pertinacious Papist: "Extra ecclesiam nulla salus" - What does it mean?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger79125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-40764573020649001822015-01-07T06:43:26.783-05:002015-01-07T06:43:26.783-05:00January 7, 2015
If you consider the Holy Office or...January 7, 2015<br />If you consider the Holy Office or Fr.Leonard Feeney in heresy determines how you interpret Vatican Council II<br /> http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/01/if-you-consider-holy-office-or.html<br /><br />http://imamanamateurbrainsurgeon.blogspot.it/2014/12/mr-andrades-and-eens-1.html#comment-formCatholic Missionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06025127342963192930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-86749311100725625392015-01-03T08:35:36.674-05:002015-01-03T08:35:36.674-05:00CONTINUED
(7) In order that a man may be saved &q...CONTINUED<br /><br />(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.<br />Lionel:<br />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.<br />This should have been clarified by the Holy Office -unless they assumed that there are defacto exceptions.<br />_______________________<br /><br />(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.<br />Lionel:<br />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.<br />___________________<br /><br />(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.<br />Lionel:<br />'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?<br />_________________________<br /><br />(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.<br />Lionel:<br />O.K but here the Holy Office implies that this is an objective case and is relevant.<br />They should have clarified here that they were referring to a hypothetical person.<br />They seemed confused and let the confusion pass on to the rest of the Catholic Church.<br />__________________________<br />concludedCatholic Missionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06025127342963192930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-58756545971992179642015-01-03T08:25:55.004-05:002015-01-03T08:25:55.004-05:00CONTINUED
5) Because the Church is necessary for s...CONTINUED<br />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.<br />Lionel:<br />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.<br /><br />(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.<br />Lionel:<br />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.<br />Presently the majority of mankind are on the way to Hell since they die without faith and baptism.<br />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.<br />________________________<br />CONTINUEDCatholic Missionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06025127342963192930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-67789448472947951662015-01-03T08:24:08.437-05:002015-01-03T08:24:08.437-05:00Father Fenton on Suprema Haec Sacra
THE HOLY OFFIC...Father Fenton on Suprema Haec Sacra<br />THE HOLY OFFICE LETTER<br />SUPREMA HAEC SACRA...<br /><br />The Holy Office letter also teaches that "no implicit intention can produce its effect [of eternal salvation] unless the man has supernatural faith."<br />Lionel:<br />Yes and this has nothing to do with the dogma.<br />__________________<br /><br /> 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".<br />Lionel:<br />Again I would say that this is acceptable but please don't posit it as an exception.<br />___________________________<br /><br />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.<br />Lionel:<br />Fine.<br />___________________________<br /> 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...<br />Lionel:<br />Fine accepted as a hypothetical case.Though not relevant to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.<br />_____________________<br /><br />When the desire is merely implicit, then a man's faith in the divinely revealed truths about the Church is likewise implicit...<br />Lionel:<br />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.<br />_____________________<br /><br /> 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.<br /><br />The following, then, are the explicit lessons brought out in the text of the Suprema haec sacra:<br /><br />(1) The teaching that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church is a dogma of the Catholic faith.<br />Lionel:<br />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.<br />_____________________<br /><br />(2) This dogma has always been taught, and will always be taught, infallibly by the Church's magisterium.<br />Lionel:<br />Yes and it did not mention any exception.<br />__________________________<br /><br />(3) The dogma must be understood and explained as the Church's magisterium understands and explains it.<br />Lionel:<br />Yes according to the Church's magisterium before 1949.<br />After 1949 it is inferred that there are known and visible exceptions to the traditional interpretation.<br />______________________<br /><br />(4) The Church is necessary for salvation with both a necessity of precept and a necessity of means.<br />Lionel:<br />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.<br />______________________<br /><br /><br />ContinuedCatholic Missionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06025127342963192930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-59531853079163876032015-01-03T08:03:09.734-05:002015-01-03T08:03:09.734-05:00Father William Most, combatted the heresy of Feene...Father William Most, combatted the heresy of Feeney<br /><br />Lionel:<br />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.<br />Otherwise he was a good apologist and I appreciate his work.<br />_______________________<br /><br /><br />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 <br />Lionel:<br />Michael Mazza makes the same error as Fr.Most. So I would be aware of this when reading what he writes.<br />He is trying to defend an irrational position.<br />________________________<br />After Archbishop Cushing suspended Fr. Feeney and placed the Center under interdict, <br />Lionel:<br />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.<br />____________________<br /><br />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.<br />Lionel_<br />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.<br />_______________________<br /><br />Catholic Missionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06025127342963192930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-88218520552005998192015-01-03T07:51:14.717-05:002015-01-03T07:51:14.717-05:00St.Benedict Centers USA keep affirming Vatican Cou...<br />St.Benedict Centers USA keep affirming Vatican Council II but not like the SSPX or the liberal bishops<br /><br />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.<br />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.<br />This would also mean rejecting the interpretation of the Council according to the bishops of Worcester, Manchester and Boston.<br />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.<br />Things couldn't be better for them.<br />They are as my friend Ian would say, 'on a good wicket'.<br />They have to explain :-<br />1.LG 16,LG8,UR 3,NA 2 etc refer to those saved as such and with the baptism of water.<br />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.<br />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,<br />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.<br />Pope Francis is our pope and he expects us to accept Vatican Council II. We do!!!<br />-Lionel AndradesCatholic Missionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06025127342963192930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-41409056470666336632015-01-02T10:23:22.233-05:002015-01-02T10:23:22.233-05:00St.Benedict Centers - misleading
How can the Slav...<br />St.Benedict Centers - misleading<br /><br />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 ? <br />This is providing misinformation.<br />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.<br />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.<br />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.<br />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.<br />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.<br />So for the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary to say presently that they accept the traditional interpretation of the dogma- is misleading.<br />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.<br />1.I ask them to answer the two simple questions which express their irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II. They will not.<br />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.<br />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.<br />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.<br />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.<br />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?<br />With so much confusion they are unintentionally misleading people on Vatican Council II relative to the dogma.-Lionel Andrades<br /><br /><br />Catholic Missionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06025127342963192930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-47973134159525698902015-01-02T10:22:23.634-05:002015-01-02T10:22:23.634-05:00Mighty Joe Young:
Lord have Mercy...M.J. knows tha...Mighty Joe Young:<br />Lord have Mercy...M.J. knows that to even ask these simple straightforward questions is to risk an uncountable number of non-responsive posts<br />Lionel:<br />Feeneyism, as a theology for you, with known exceptions is irrational.Think about it.<br />_____________________<br /><br />O, and who even cares if Feeny's fiends assert that V2 did not contradict Feeney?<br />Lionel;<br />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.<br />_________________________<br /><br /><br />Feeny had NO teaching authority; do you even understand that simple truth?<br />Lionel:<br />The Bishop was in heresy for implying that there are known exceptions to the dogma.<br />He used his ecclesistic powers against the priest in his diocese to silence him.<br />Fr.Feeney was not teaching anythng new.<br />___________________________<br />You clearly do not as you judge Catholic Tradition according to Feeney's heresy.<br />Lionel:<br />How can he be in heresy when there are no known exceptions to the dogma and no text before 1949 claims there are exceptions.<br />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.<br />________________________<br /><br />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?<br />Lionel:<br />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.<br />________________________<br /><br />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<br /><br />Yeah, he pulled down the report MJ copied and pasted from right in this thread...<br /><br />Pull the other one.<br /><br />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.<br />Lionel:<br />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.<br />_____________________<br /><br />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.<br />Lionel:<br />I don't know who is MJ.<br />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.<br />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.<br />______________________<br /><br /> Mighty Joe Young said...<br />Lionel avers: For me, being saved with the baptism of desire or blood,must always include the baptism of water.<br />Lionel:<br />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.<br />It is a de fide teaching which says all need the baptism of water for salvation. This was the dogmatic teaching.<br />______________________<br /><br /><br />Then you are a clear and manifest heretic. Period.<br />Lionel<br />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.<br />Catholic Missionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06025127342963192930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-10634659752174307492015-01-02T10:03:02.346-05:002015-01-02T10:03:02.346-05:00Mighty Joe Young
said...
To create theology based...<br />Mighty Joe Young<br /><br />said...<br />To create theology based on us being able to see the dead now in Heaven is irrational.It is also non traditional.<br /><br />Seriously, what'n'hell ARE you talking about? <br /><br />Lionel:<br />I am referring to the common theology. The one also held by you.<br />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.<br />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?<br />This was the error of Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Holy Office in 1949.<br />So when you refer to Feeneyism this is the irrational theology you have accepted.<br /><br />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.<br />______________________<br /><br />Where in hell did you unearth this worry stone of yours that you are obsessively self-soothingly stroking ?<br />Lionel:<br />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).<br />_______________________<br /><br />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?<br /><br />Lionel:<br />Fr.Leonard Feeney held the traditional doctrine until the Holy Office approved of a new version based on alleged de facto exceptions.<br />_____________________________<br /><br />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.<br />Lionel:<br />I don't know what is IANS etc but anyway I hope he realizes the irrationality of his theology.<br />___________________<br /><br />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.<br />Lionel:<br />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?<br />And is is not heresy to say that every one does not need to enter the Church because there are exceptions ?<br />____________________<br />Continued<br />Catholic Missionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06025127342963192930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-49308974893013331612015-01-02T07:59:42.377-05:002015-01-02T07:59:42.377-05:00Father William Most, combatted the heresy of Feene...<br /><br /><br /> Father William Most, combatted the heresy of Feeney and in doing so he produced this crazy ass quote from Fr Feeney:<br /><br />Thomas M. Sennott, They Fought the<br /> Good Fight, Catholic Treasures, Monrovia CA. 1987, pp. 305-06): <br /><br /><i>"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?</i><br /><br />OK, that is not only an insane lie, it is mean-spirited lunacy. Feeney's God is evil.<br /><br />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 <br /><br /><i>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. <b>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. </b>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 .</i><br /><br />http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=963Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosquehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12879499915093940176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-72703887927138034132015-01-02T07:51:15.732-05:002015-01-02T07:51:15.732-05:00Father Fenton on Suprema Haec Sacra
THE HOLY OFF...Father Fenton on Suprema Haec Sacra<br /><br /><br />THE HOLY OFFICE LETTER<br />SUPREMA HAEC SACRA<br /><br /><br />...<br /> <br /><br /> 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".<br /><br /> 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.<br /><br /> 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.<br /><br /> The following, then, are the explicit lessons brought out in the text of the Suprema haec sacra:<br /><br />(1) The teaching that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church is a dogma of the Catholic faith.<br /><br />(2) This dogma has always been taught, and will always be taught, infallibly by the Church's magisterium.<br /><br />(3) The dogma must be understood and explained as the Church's magisterium understands and explains it.<br /><br />(4) The Church is necessary for salvation with both a necessity of precept and a necessity of means.<br /><br />(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.<br /><br />(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.<br /><br />(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.<br /><br />(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.<br /><br />(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.<br /><br />(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.<br />Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosquehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12879499915093940176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-88888547472138793642015-01-02T07:47:55.382-05:002015-01-02T07:47:55.382-05:00Here is Aquinas I answer that, The sacrament or Ba...Here is Aquinas <i>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.</i><br /><br /><i><b>Secondly, 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."</b></i><br /><br />Lionel avers: <i>There are quotations on the internet where he affirms the traditional dogma. I don't have to off hand.</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />Lionel avers <i><br />I think since Fr.Cekada wrote that article he has changed his view.<br />Please confirm it with him.<br />Please ask him to respond to the comments on this blogpost.</i><br /><br />You make an unsubstantiated claim yet you expect others to prove your unsubstantiated claim is accurate.<br /><br />Stop it; just stop it, Lionel.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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- CalvinistMick Jagger Gathers No Mosquehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12879499915093940176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-59995451251061239912014-12-31T05:23:09.517-05:002014-12-31T05:23:09.517-05:00Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary religious f...Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary religious formation<br /><br /> <br />Brother 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.<br />Novices have to allege that there are exceptions in Vatican Council II to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.<br />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? <br />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<br />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.<br />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<br />http://catholicism.org/ad-rem-no-241.htmlCatholic Missionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06025127342963192930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-53175548895416714892014-12-31T05:17:56.849-05:002014-12-31T05:17:56.849-05:00Mighty Joe Young :
Some have tendentiously (ok, no...<br />Mighty Joe Young :<br />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: <br /><br />Summa Theologica, Part IIIa, Q. 68)<br /><br />http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm<br />Lionel:<br />There are quotations on the internet where he affirms the traditional dogma. I don't have to off hand.<br /><br />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.<br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Lionel:<br />When St.thomas affirmed the dogma, he was supporting Feeneyism too, as in some of the quotes you have placed here.<br /><br /><br />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.<br />Lionel:<br />I think since Fr.Cekada wrote that article he has changed his view.<br />Please confirm it with him.<br />Please ask him to respond to the comments on this blogpost.Catholic Missionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06025127342963192930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-57970926097169805122014-12-30T15:47:04.326-05:002014-12-30T15:47:04.326-05:00Lionel avers: For me, being saved with the baptism...Lionel avers: <i>For me, being saved with the baptism of desire or blood,must always include the baptism of water.</i><br /><br /><br />Then you are a clear and manifest heretic. Period.Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosquehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12879499915093940176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-27931165387712558592014-12-30T15:32:21.030-05:002014-12-30T15:32:21.030-05:00To create theology based on us being able to see t...<i>To create theology based on us being able to see the dead now in Heaven is irrational.It is also non traditional.</i><br /><br />Seriously, what'n'hell ARE you talking about? <br /><br />Where in hell did you unearth this worry stone of yours that you are obsessively self-soothingly stroking ?<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Lord have Mercy...M.J. knows that to even ask these simple straightforward questions is to risk an uncountable number of non-responsive posts<br /><br />O, and who even cares if Feeny's fiends assert that V2 did not contradict Feeney?<br /><br />Feeny had NO teaching authority; do you even understand that simple truth?<br /><br />You clearly do not as you judge Catholic Tradition according to Feeney's heresy.<br /><br />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?<br /><br /><i> 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</i><br /><br />Yeah, he pulled down the report MJ copied and pasted from right in this thread...<br /><br />Pull the other one.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />A bit more to come on thisMick Jagger Gathers No Mosquehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12879499915093940176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-23929122600755856762014-12-30T08:57:18.304-05:002014-12-30T08:57:18.304-05:00Some have tendentiously (ok, not mere bias but act...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: <br /><br />Summa Theologica, Part IIIa, Q. 68)<br /><br />http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br />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.<br />Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosquehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12879499915093940176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-77949989776439269572014-12-30T06:49:25.018-05:002014-12-30T06:49:25.018-05:00Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary : Vatican C...<br />Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary : Vatican Council II does not contradict 'the rigorist interpretation' of the dogma <br />http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/12/slaves-of-immaculate-heart-of-mary_30.html<br />___________<br />___________Catholic Missionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06025127342963192930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-36535800434403713942014-12-30T06:47:48.227-05:002014-12-30T06:47:48.227-05:00If the Bishops of Argentine and Albano cannot acce...If the Bishops of Argentine and Albano cannot accept Vatican Council II without the irrational inference, then it is a doctrinal issue<br />http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/if-bishops-of-argentine-and-albano.html#links<br />__________________<br /><br />The SSPX must respond to Bishop Semeraro by citing Catholic doctrine on Vatican Council II which supports their position<br />http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/the-sspx-must-respond-to-bishop.html<br />http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/11/another-bishop-excommunicates-faithful.html<br />____________________<br /><br />Pope Francis, Cardinal Muller and Cardinal Ladaria are refusing to interpret Vatican Council II without the irrationality<br />http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/pope-francis-cardinal-muller-and.html<br />______________________Catholic Missionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06025127342963192930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-34718169292552767732014-12-30T04:52:06.516-05:002014-12-30T04:52:06.516-05:00Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Still Rive...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<br /><br />http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/12/slaves-of-immaculate-heart-of-mary.html<br />Catholic Missionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06025127342963192930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-34967781313800869712014-12-30T04:50:21.745-05:002014-12-30T04:50:21.745-05:00Mighty Joe Young said...
Dear Lionel. It was M.Js...Mighty Joe Young said... <br />Dear Lionel. It was M.Js intention to bury your support for Feeney's heresy under an avalanche of sources...<br />Lionel:<br />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.<br />Not a single quote! Not a single source.<br />The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was a break with Tradition.<br />_____________________<br /><br />But MJ doubts you will be able to convince others that Feeney was right and the Catholic church wrong.<br />Lionel:<br />I have quoted above an American Archbishop, a Benedictine Dean of Theology and an American apologist.They agree with me.<br />There are no known exceptions to the dogma. This is something fundamental. Even Catholics with no knowledge of theology agree. <br />______________________<br /><br />Fr Cekada really nailed it on the matter of doctrinal interpretation re Feenye's heresy and Bishop Sanborn (just one of many), rightly,...<br />Lionel:<br />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.<br />____________________<br /><br />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?<br />Lionel:<br />He affirmed the dogma until death.He refused to recant.<br /><br />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<br /> http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1949/10/29/father-feeney-is-dismissed-from-jesuit/<br />_______________________<br /><br /><br />In any event, it is quite clear that your ideological defense of fenney's heresy also includes rejection of a simple doctrinal principle...<br />Lionel:<br />I accept the baptism of desire. I have not rejected it. For me it is compatible with the dogma.<br />_____________________<br /><br />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.<br />Lionel:<br />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?Catholic Missionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06025127342963192930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-24987716471328174932014-12-30T04:37:27.530-05:002014-12-30T04:37:27.530-05:00Mighty Joe Young said...
Fr.Leonard Feeney said e...Mighty Joe Young said... <br />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.<br /><br />Here are some examples of Mighty Joe Young supporting Feeneyism:-<br /><br />Catechism of Saint Pius X<br />Necessity of Baptism and Obligations of the Baptised<br /><br />16 Q. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?<br /><br />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."<br />___________________<br /><br /><br />Catechisme OR<br />CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE<br />BY Laurence Vaux, B.D.,<br /><br />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... <br />____________________<br /><br />Catholic Missionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06025127342963192930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-80769711490481111922014-12-30T04:29:00.155-05:002014-12-30T04:29:00.155-05:00Mighty Joe Young
I had been in contact with Fr.Cek...Mighty Joe Young<br />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.<br />_____________________<br /><br />Mighgty Joe Young:<br /> said... <br />Baptism of Desire and<br />Theological Principles (2000)<br /><br />by Rev. Anthony Cekada<br /><br />What principles must Catholics follow to arrive at the truth?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Lionel:<br />The St.Benedict Centers accept the baptism of desire followed with the baptism of water.<br />________________________<br /><br />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,”...<br />Lionel:<br />Yes they are expected to accept the baptism of desire as a possibility, known only to God.<br />They are not expected to accept the baptism of desire as refering to known cases in the present times.This would also be irrational.<br />_______________________<br /><br />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.<br />Lionel:<br />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.<br />I think he now realizes that it was an error.<br />____________________<br /><br />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. <br />Lionel:<br />To create theology based on us being able to see the dead now in Heaven is irrational.It is also non traditional.<br />__________________________<br /><br /><br />He who rejects these criteria rejects the foundations of Catholic theology and constructs a peculiar theology of his own...<br />Lionel:<br />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.<br /><br />It is a peculiar theology which infers that we can see the dead on earth saved with the baptism of desire.<br /><br />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.<br />_________________Catholic Missionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06025127342963192930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-73133123329170027512014-12-29T09:15:11.591-05:002014-12-29T09:15:11.591-05:00Baptism of Desire and
Theological Principles (2000...Baptism of Desire and<br />Theological Principles (2000)<br /><br />by Rev. Anthony Cekada<br /><br />What principles must Catholics follow to arrive at the truth?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.”<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosquehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12879499915093940176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-15888321566044226792014-12-29T09:11:21.321-05:002014-12-29T09:11:21.321-05:00Fr.Leonard Feeney said every one needs the baptism...<i>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.</i><br /><br />Your ideology has blinded you to even the simple words placed before you.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />OK, Lionel. Bye byeMick Jagger Gathers No Mosquehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12879499915093940176noreply@blogger.com