Have you heard all the buzz in Catholic Candy Land lately?
Multiple news agencies worldwide are reporting that Pope Francis, during the Spanish bishops’ ad limina visit earlier this year, allegedly said, “This [the teaching on the indissolubility of marriage] was established by Jesus Christ and the Pope cannot change it.”
This as recalled by Bishop Demetrio Fernandez of Cordoba as published in a recent interview.
So, let me get this straight…
The Bishop of Rome (as he prefers to be known), during the course of a private meeting that took place more than six months ago, said that the pope can’t change dogmatic Catholic teaching.
This is what passes for news these days, and the reason is entirely obvious:
On 13 March 2013, the pope became an elderly Jesuit. And we’re not talking about a Fr. John Hardon kind of elderly Jesuit; no, we’re talking about a man who openly idolizes Carlo Maria Martini and Giovanni Battista Montini.
Seriously, is there a faithful Catholic alive today who at any time prior to the abdication of Benedict XVI wouldn’t have shuddered at the mere suggestion!
Today, we have good reason to shudder.
Even Francis’ fiercest defenders among the so-called “conservatives” in the media realize that the man simply doesn’t take the duties of the Petrine Office seriously, at least inasmuch as said duties have always been properly understood by those with even a drop of sensus catholicus.
For the last 18 months, the papacy has been effectively reduced to a one man circus act; complete with beach balls, clown noses and soap bubble homilies.
If the neo-Catholic media had any real confidence in Pope Francis, this latest exposé detailing his orthodox-sounding commentary would be getting no more attention than one might expect Field & Stream Magazine to give to rumors that a bear defecated in the woods.
Of course the pope can’t change the dogma of the Faith concerning the indissolubility of marriage! That goes without say, but let’s be clear about what that really means.
The pope cannot teach anything contrary to this, or any other dogma of the Faith, with the express purpose of doing so as pastor and teacher of all Christians, in accord with his Supreme Apostolic Authority, in such way as to bind the entire faithful of the Universal Church.
And why not? Because the Holy Ghost will not allow the pope to so err.
Said protection from error, however, will most certainly allow for all sorts of nonsense that otherwise undermines the dogmas of the Faith.
Don’t believe it? Take a look at the documents of the Second Vatican Council wherein one will find such malignant propositions as:
– Christ does not hesitate to use the communities of the heretics as means of salvation (UR 3)
– The Jews of today who reject Christ are one with the children of the Church in His Saving Cross (NA 4)
– The primary function of the priest is to proclaim the Gospel to all (PO 4)
Was the Holy Ghost asleep on the job then?
Of course not, He simply allowed headstrong men of little faith to create non-binding, non-definitive, and seriously harmful texts that have so effectively undermined the doctrines of faith for the last 50 years that priests who behave like glorified protestant ministers and who happily confirm heretics and Jews in their deadly errors are a dime a dozen.
Had the Council Fathers sought to bind the faithful to such condemnable ideas, however, their best efforts would have been Divinely frustrated.
With this in mind, we look to the upcoming Synod on Marriage and Family knowing very well that Pope Francis and the bishops in union with him will be utterly powerless to change the immutable sacred deposit of Christian doctrine, but we also know that all concerned will be given plenty of freedom to effectively undermine the same if they happen to so choose.
Given all that we know about the elderly Jesuit in white who couldn’t praise the “profound and serene” theology of Cardinal Kasper enough at the February Consistory, is there really any good reason to expect anything else?
Louie, you are correct. This Bishop Of Rome, (nor any other Pope) cannot in FACT change the dogma of the faith. However, since Vat 2, they have skillfully altered the PERCEPTION of the true dogmas of the faith. They do not deny the REAL presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist. However, the Holy Eucharist is manhandled as if it were merely “blessed bread”. They don’t deny the existence of Hell, but they don’t preach that anyone is actually in hell. So, these clever Modernists know how to change dogma without actually changing dogma. Perception becomes reality. Just change the way the faithful THINK by destroying the memory of the pre-Vatican 2 Church. That is why Tradition is their greatest enemy. That is why Tradition is our only hope. This is time for much prayer.
Can Bergoglio change Church teaching? The following analogy may provide a useful approach to answering this question.
In 1967, the British Parliament decriminalized buggery, but the legislation applied to England and Wales only, not Scotland. In Scotland, meanwhile, the Lord Advocate (roughly equivalent to the Attorney General) had instructed that there should be no prosecutions for buggery. The question is: did the Lord Advocate’s instruction change the law in Scotland – even though it was not legislation?
The answer to this question depends on the definition of “law”, about which there is no universal agreement. If, however, you take legal philosopher John Austin’s definition – “the command of a sovereign, backed by the threat of a sanction” – then the answer would of course be, “Yes”. The Lord Advocate had removed the threat of a sanction.
By removing the threat of a sanction, therefore, Bergoglio would be changing Church teaching, at least on this interpretation.
As a postscript to the above, the Catholic Encyclopedia makes the following remark under “Sanctity (Mark of the Church)”. A mark of the Church, of course, is a means by which the true Church is objectively identified:
“Her vindication of the indissolubility of marriage in the face of a licentious world affords the most conspicuous instance of this. She alone maintains in its integrity her Master’s teaching on marriage.”
Francis is not protected from error because he is not the real pope. Just watch – you WILL see “new dogma” proclaimed at various times after the Synod, and with the express claim of infallibility on top of it. What will it take for you all to recognize this False Prophet?
I’ll be waiting, “remnantclergy,” for the words “I define….”
If Francis ever uses them when teaching, and what he teaches is contrary to the Bible and Tradition, I’ll be out the door.
For now, I’ll just listen for those words, and listen to nothing that Francis the Lame has to say. He is despicable.
The Pope cannot change dogma/doctrine.
What is happening appears to be more subtle. Instead of trying to change pre-existing rules, just simply abandon those same rules.
You’re not supposed to live in sin before marriage. No problem if you have been living in sin we’ll ignore that and allow you to marry anyhow.
You’re not supposed to question the Real Presence – body, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ – in the Eucharist. No problem, you can receive the Eucharist anyhow.
There is no need to change the rules. Simply abandon all observance of the rules.
How do the recent canonizations and upcoming beatification of Paul VI fit into all this confidence in papal infallibility?
God bless you for another lone voice!
Father Cekada succintly summed up what Bergoglio is. A Revolutionary who has systematically gone about setting Newchurch at war with the vestiages of the true church still lingering in the Novus Ordo, in order to wipe it out. He may actually achieve this aim in Newchurch, but, fortunately for us, and unfortunately for him, True cannot be wiped out, not by him or anyone else. She exists, she continues on, however much ignored by Catholics.
–
http://www.restorationradionetwork.org/season-3-francis-watch-episode-7-the-october-sin-od-go-and-sin-some-more/
Bishop Livieres is not going down without a fight.
________
“….Pope Francis will have to answer for his decision before God.”
________
Link here: http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2014/09/bishop-livieres-pope-francis-will-have.html
________
Money quote:
“The leading group of the Paraguayan Bishops makes no secret of their satisfaction with the dismissal of Bishop Livieres. Livieres was considered a militant defender of the orthodoxy. In almost every parish of his diocese the Holy Mass was celebrated in the Old Rite. His seminary altogether has many more seminarians than any other of the Paraguayan dioceses and about seven times as many seminarians as the much larger Archdiocese of Buenos Aires.”
________
Success will not be tolerated. 😉
Dear Salvemur:
Thanks for the link. Always a pleasure listening to the Bishop Sanborn and Farther Cekada.
_______
I entirely agree that the VII is a new sect.
_______
Where I would disagree, is that this VII sect “subsists”in the Church, not that it is the Church.
_______
And that is why we are seeing the “fratricide” that is taking place in the modernist Rome.
And this “progressive” progress coming over from the land of our revolutionary Synod “beer hall putschers”….
_______
“Germany’s state Ethics Council has recommended that the government abolish the country’s law banning sibling incest”
_______
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/germany-hillbilly-degenerates-ethics-incest/
________
Money line:
“Laws banning incest between brothers and sisters in Germany could be scraped after a government ethics committee said the they were an unacceptable intrusion into the right to sexual self-determination.”
_______
Leftist thinking brought to its logical conclusion. 😉
_______
Wonder what ++ Kasper’s take on this and “communion debate” could be? 😉
And on for the “this means war” category.
________
“Benedict want his throne back”
________
Link here: http://www.eyeofthetiber.com/2014/09/25/pope-emeritus-benedict-xvi-asks-to-be-reinstated-as-pope/
________
Money quote:
“Vatican spokesman Fr. Vitateli Devitiamani told EOTT that, “He came for a dinner as scheduled and then proceeded to return to his old living quarters. That wouldn’t be a problem, since His Holiness Pope Francis chose to live elsewhere, the room is open. However, once we asked him where he was going, he simply said, ‘I’m back,’ then proceeded to put his sunglasses on even though we were inside.”
________
In the “church of Francis”, parody IS reality. 😉
And one for the “calling Fr. Volpi, please pick up the courtesy phone” category.
_______
Inaugural Mass for new ICKSP Apostolate in Preston England.
_______
Link here:http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2014/09/inaugural-mass-of-new-icksp-apostolate.html#.VCZ9sBY09Ko
_______
More liturgical decadance, please? 😉
Don’t believe it? Take a look at the documents of the Second Vatican Council wherein one will find such malignant propositions as:
– Christ does not hesitate to use the communities of the heretics as means of salvation (UR 3)
– The Jews of today who reject Christ are one with the children of the Church in His Saving Cross (NA 4)
This can be interpreted according to the liberals as meaning there is a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
For me it is not a break since hypothetically a Protestant or Jew could be saved in his religion, under certain conditions (which could include the baptism of water).However since these cases mentioned above (UR 3,NA 4) are not known to us.They are not explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Neither are they exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.
To imply that these cases are visible to us and so are exceptions to the traditonal teaching on salvation, is Cushingism. You are correct the Vatican uses Cushingism in the interpretation of the Council.
The two examples which you have given can also be interpreted with Feeneyism . There are no exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Those saved in other religions would be saved with the baptism of water and they would be Catholics when they are in Heaven.
Vatican Council II (UR 3,NA 4) has mentioned them but not stated that they are known, objective cases. This has to be wrongly inferred and in general this is the common inference.However we have the choice of accepting them as being hypothetical cases known only to God.They cannot be anything else.If we consider them as hypotehtical cases only, we are not using the irrational premise.We do not infer that they are living persons in 2014.
With Cushingism the examples you have provided above result in ‘ a development of doctrine’ according to the Vatican.This is the position of the Catholic universities in Rome. Without the premise ( dead-saved are visble exceptions to the dogma) Vatican Council II is traditional on other religions and Christian communities.
Second Vatican Council II did not ‘develop’ extra ecclesiam nulla salus it affirmed the Feeneyite position -3
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/09/second-vatican-council-ii-did-not_49.html
my2cents y
Louie, you are correct. This Bishop Of Rome, (nor any other Pope) cannot in FACT change the dogma of the faith.
Lionel:
They can change the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus when they use an irrational inference in the interpretation of Vatican Council II. So a pastoral Council becomes dogmatic.
I don’t know if Francis said that he couldn’t change church dogma to the Spanish bishop or not, but at any rate it’s clearly not what’s in his mind. I posted the comment below a couple of articles back, and I’m really surprised the statements by the Franciscan Argentine priest who very recently met with Francis are not getting more attention, as they are very revealing indeed about what’s exactly in Francis’ mind. As I am writing this the video so far only has 71 views!!!! Here is the past comment, copy and pasted:
–
–
–
*BREAKING*
–
Fr Joaquin Nunez recently met with Francis in Rome (10 September) and confirms (well, did we really need confirmation at this stage?) Francis’ desire to sacrilegiously give communion to public adulterers living in a state of mortal sin:
“Y me dijo: también, sigamos para adelante” (And he [Francis] told me: also, let us go forward with this [plan to give communion to remarried divorcees]) (1:55)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6lG-IuDLzw
–
Will there be a schism in the Church during the Bergoglian Oktober revolution, at the end of which they will have the temerity to “beatify” Paul VI of most infelicitious memory? Isn’t the “beatification” of this man another sign that the apostasy is nearing a climax?
–
–
–
There is some confusion about Baptism of Desire: one cannot be saved because he belongs to a religion outside the Catholic Church. BUT if a person outside the Catholic Church looks to God in every instant of his life, and follows the directions of his well formed conscience – AND HAS NO MORTAL SINS ON HIS SOUL AT DEATH he MAY be saved by God’s Mercy.
So it’s not being saved ‘in his religion,’ which is impossible. It is being saved because God’s Mercy has preserved him throughout life without mortal sin. And how possible is that in this day and age? Not very.
What The Pope should say is: listen, we love you and we respect you. But unless you are completely sinless where you are right now, or unless you join the Catholic Church, you’re going to hell.
Please correct me if I am mistaken, but this is my understanding.
That’s why we pray for these darned people!!!!!! We pray for them to either come into the one true Church, or to repent of all serious sin before death – if they have PERFECT contrition they MAY be saved.
Can. 335 When the Roman See is vacant or entirely impeded, nothing is to be altered in the governance of the universal Church; the special laws issued for these circumstances, however, are to be observed.
——
Pot meet kettle. “Bishop” Sanborn, whether adhering to 99.9999999999% of Church Tradition is every much an imposter as those he rails against. Sanborn is not a successor of the Apostles and has zero authority to govern and teach in Christ’s name. Period. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
VII is a good cash cow. Gotta appeal to the emotion of the scandalized to tell sell them Fr. C books. Much like Alex Jones and his water filters.
I know, right?.. cuz Truth and hope is always found in a self proclaimed remnant.
John Madison,
The pope can teach infallibly in solemn or non solemn form without using the words, I define…
A pope can teach heresy, only in a sense, that is inasmuch has he teaches it, he is no longer pope but a heretic, but then he is no longer pope either…
Such a case prevails only when “teaching” is used in strictest sense of imposition of doctrine, not merely expressing an opinion…for example if the Pope should say, I think Christ might not be God, he has blasphemed and sinned gravely, expressing a doubt against the faith..but he is not a heretic until he denies that Christ is such…there is a proceedure for fraternal correction and a proceedure for the College of Cardinals in such matters, jumping the gun for you or me or anyone is not sane, holy, or Catholic…
Barbara:
There is some confusion about Baptism of Desire: one cannot be saved because he belongs to a religion outside the Catholic Church
I would like to say that Vatican Council II is traditional on the issue of other religions and Christian communities when
1) We do not assume that those who are in Heaven are exceptions on earth to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
In other words:
2) We cannot see the dead on earth; we cannot see on earth with our physical eyes, people now in Heaven.
In this context I refer to the Baptism of Desire. Whether a person can be saved or not with the Baptism of Desire is another theological issue.
I keep the text of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus before . It says all need to be formal members of the Catholic Church for salvation i.e all need Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water for salvation.
So if you say someone could be saved with the Baptism of Desire or if you say that someone could not be saved with the Baptism of Desire, either way, it is irrelevant to the dogma on salvation. Since this case is not visible to us in 2014.The person is Heaven. So this hypothetical person cannot be an explicit exception to all needing the Baptism of Water in the Catholic Church to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.
Excellent post just out at RC.
______
In the VII church, the “filth rises to the top”.
______
Link here: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/09/back-to-normal-bishop-liberal-in.html#more
______
Very good observation:
“Is the bishop speaking for himself, or is he speaking on behalf of those blackmailing him? Is there truly such thing as a “moderate” bishop, or is he being “moderated” by the enemies of the Church out of fear that his duplicitous behavior will be revealed?”
_______
This is the first question we all should ask when confronted with a wayward cleric. Starting with Francis.
Over at Mundabor’s blog, this:
_______
Brave priest speaks out.
_______
Link here: http://mundabor.wordpress.com/2014/09/27/god-bless-father-dickson-again/
________
Fr. Dickson writes:
“With so many bishops and priests currently watering down the Church’s teaching on these by favouring Communion for the Divorced and civilly ‘remarried’, as well by supporting homosexual civil ‘unions’ under the guise of protecting civil rights, the Synod is in great danger of denying the Gospel and Christ.
Though it is becoming increasingly difficult, I am always encouraging people to hope and trust that Francis will not allow the Synod to deviate from the established doctrine that marriage is a permanent union between one man and one woman, exclusive of all others, open to the procreation of life.
If the Synod recommends allowing Communion to the remarried Divorcee, cohabiting couples, and/or supports civil ‘unions’ for homosexuals even in order to protect their civil rights, then Pope Paul VI’s ‘smoke of Satan’ will have surely entered the Church, because the bottom line is this: if Francis and/or the Synod declare a change to Church teaching on marriage and sexuality they do not actually change the Faith, they actually abandon the faith.
It is useless to say the Pope is our Supreme Teacher and that we must give submission of will and intellect to his teaching, because that holds only when he holds himself bound by revelation and defined dogma, of which he is but the custodian, not the originator.
I cannot bring myself to believe that Francis will allow an attempt to change doctrine happen because it would take the arrogance of hell to proclaim that the faithful and the Popes have been wrong for over two millennia, and I am unwilling to ascribe such arrogance to any man.
Can we really ascribe it to Francis and our Bishops? And if not, can we ascribe to them simple stupidity, or a faithlessness that has seen them fall into relativism? I hope not.
If the Synod and Francis do attempt to impose a new teaching which contravenes defined teaching, we are at rights to decry that new teaching for as long as it takes to have it declared erroneous -and not only the right, but the duty. ”
_______
Cajones exponential!
Of peacocks and protestants. 🙂
______
http://thatthebonesyouhavecrushedmaythrill.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-ideological-war-in-church-as.html
_______
Yep.
The Remanent unleashed.
______
Link: http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/1078-the-rise-of-bergoglianism
______
Christopher Ferrara writes:
“A caution to the reader: What follows is a very harsh assessment of the current pontificate. I felt compelled to write it, but no one is compelled to read it.”
_______
It’s not just him.
Some report Pope Francis won’t give communion to adulterers
Some report Pope Francis will give communion to adulterers
All reports are second hand of some bishop says this some other bishop says that…
Nothing at all out of the mouth of Pope Francis himself.
If the Church were a corporation, the CEO would make a public announcement about where he stands so that there is no confusion. Prolonged silence and inability to clarify always usually means there is something to hide. For a Church looking for good PR, they sure are doing a disastrous job. If Pope Francis doesn’t speak, then the worst is always going to be assumed (though the worst might be a good thing for a certain crowd of folk).
dear Mr. V.,
Are you giving us a video before the sin–odd ? It would be so appreciated for those of us who couldn’t see you in person these past weeks.
S.Armaticus. Eye of the Tiber is a parody site.
‘There is some confusion about Baptism of Desire: one cannot be saved because he belongs to a religion outside the Catholic Church’
–
How does one belong to a ‘religion’ outside the Catholic Church if the individual renounces it and embraces Catholicism?
–
‘I would like to say that Vatican Council II is traditional on the issue of other religions and Christian communities when’
–
It guarantees false religions as a ‘right’, that is not Traditional.
–
‘1) We do not assume that those who are in Heaven are exceptions on earth to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.’
–
Nor do you have any authority to assert all who die outside the Church are damned, unless you actually claim the authority of God.
–
‘In this context I refer to the Baptism of Desire. Whether a person can be saved or not with the Baptism of Desire is another theological issue.’
–
And Theologians have argued that Baptism of Desire is a possibility.
–
‘I keep the text of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus before . It says all need to be formal members of the Catholic Church for salvation i.e all need Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water for salvation.’
–
Heresy: Feeyenism. Holy Office 1949 condemned it, see St. Thomas Aquinas as a rebuttal of Feeyenism’s notion that Baptism of Desire is inadequate. (Apocalypse 7:14)
–
‘So if you say someone could be saved with the Baptism of Desire or if you say that someone could not be saved with the Baptism of Desire, either way, it is irrelevant to the dogma on salvation.’
–
You’re the only one bringing it up.
–
‘Since this case is not visible to us in 2014.The person is Heaven. So this hypothetical person cannot be an explicit exception to all needing the Baptism of Water in the Catholic Church to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.’
–
And of the Good Thief? No one knows if he was baptised, and infact, given his repentance on the cross would logically lead to a last minute repentance which would rule against the potentiality of the good thief obtaining Baptism. The whole issue of the Baptism of Desire has not been decreed by the Church, nor has St. Thomas Aquinas’s notions of Baptism of Desire been condemned by the Church, St. Thomas Aquinas was very well aware of the Council of Trent..
Christopher
How does one belong to a ‘religion’ outside the Catholic Church if the individual renounces it and embraces Catholicism?
Lionel:
The issue is: is Vatican Council II contradicting the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
If someone belongs to a ‘religion’ outside the Catholic Church and is saved or if he embraces Catholicism and is saved this still is a hypothetical case. A hypothetical case is not an exception to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
All references to salvation in Vatican Council II are hypothetical.
_______________________________________________
Lionel:
‘I would like to say that Vatican Council II is traditional on the issue of other religions and Christian communities when’
Christopher:
It guarantees false religions as a ‘right’, that is not Traditional.
Lionel:
The reference was to other religions and Christian communities. Does Vatican Council II say that those who are saved in other religions are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus? No. One can infer that they are exceptions but this would be a personal inference and it would be irrational. Since we cannot see the dead do they cannot be exceptions.
___________________________________________________
Lionel:
’1) We do not assume that those who are in Heaven are exceptions on earth to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.’
Christopher:-
Nor do you have any authority to assert all who die outside the Church are damned, unless you actually claim the authority of God.
Lionel:
All who die outside the Church are on the way to Hell. This is the teaching of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7)
______________________________________________
Lionel:
‘In this context I refer to the Baptism of Desire. Whether a person can be saved or not with the Baptism of Desire is another theological issue.’
Christopher:
And Theologians have argued that Baptism of Desire is a possibility.
Lionel:
If the Baptism of Desire leads to salvation without the baptism of water or with the baptism of water, the theologians must agree that we cannot name any single such case in 2014. So we do not have an explicit exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.Vatican Council II also does not say there are explicit cases.
___________________________________________________
Lionel:
‘I keep the text of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus before me. It says all need to be formal members of the Catholic Church for salvation i.e all need Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water for salvation.’
Christopher:
Heresy: Feeyenism. Holy Office 1949 condemned it, see St. Thomas Aquinas as a rebuttal of Feeyenism’s notion that Baptism of Desire is inadequate. (Apocalypse 7:14)
Lionel:
If any one, even if he is a cardinal or a pope, says that we can see the dead on earth who are now also in Heaven and these deceased are visible in the flesh to him, are also explicit exceptions to all needing the baptism of water in the Catholic Church in 2014, then, this person, is factually wrong. The Holy Office 1949 made an objective mistake in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case. There are defacto no exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.
The same objective error is being made in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.(LG 16 (saved in invincible ignorance) is considered an exception to AG 7 (all need faith and baptism for salvation).
Secondly, St.Thomas Aquinas supported Feeneyism. The man in the forest who is in ignorance is not an exception to the dogma which St.Thomas Aquinas upheld. St. Thomas said that God would send a preacher to teach and baptise him. So every one who is in Heaven, for St.Thomas Aquionas, is there with the baptism of water and Catholic Faith.
___________________________________________
Lionel:
‘So if you say someone could be saved with the Baptism of Desire or if you say that someone could not be saved without the Baptism of Desire, either way, it is irrelevant to the dogma on salvation.’
Christopher:
You’re the only one bringing it up.
Lionel:
I am aware that Vatican Council II can be interpreted with Feeneyism or Cushingism, without the irrational premise( dead are visible) or with the irrational premise.I choose the rational interpretation.
Similarly the SSPX can affirm Vatican Council II without the irrational premise. They would also be in harmony with Tradition, the dogma on salvation, the Syllabus of Errors, the Catechism of Pope Pius X etc.They could have it both ways. Vatican Council II and Tradition. Baptism of Desire and extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
__________________________________________
Lionel:
‘Since this case is not visible to us in 2014, since this person is in Heaven, this hypothetical person cannot be an explicit exception to all needing the Baptism of Water in the Catholic Church to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.’
Christopher:
And of the Good Thief?
Lionel:
If there is someone saved without the baptism of water(Good Thief?) he would not be known to us in 2014. I cannot meet someone on the streets who has been saved as such or is going to be saved as such. So it is irrelevant to the dogmatic teaching.
Implicit for us baptism of desire, invisible for us baptism of desire is compatible with the ‘rigorist interpretation’ of Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Centers ,mentioned (criticized) in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
Christopher:
No one knows if he was baptised, and infact, given his repentance on the cross would logically lead to a last minute repentance which would rule against the potentiality of the good thief obtaining Baptism. The whole issue of the Baptism of Desire has not been decreed by the Church, nor has St. Thomas Aquinas’s notions of Baptism of Desire been condemned by the Church, St. Thomas Aquinas was very well aware of the Council of Trent..
Lionel:
Baptism of Desire is always theoretical and implicit for us. So it was never mentioned by the Church Councils as an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It was Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits in Bosto, who came up with this new theory of a visible baptism of desire which was an exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma.
Cushingism is irrational, non traditional and heretical.
‘The issue is: is Vatican Council II contradicting the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?’
–
You avoided the question, how does a person belong to a ‘religion’ outside the Catholic Church if the individual renounces said religion and embraces what is essentially Catholicism? As to Vatican Council II contradicting the Dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, yes, by proposing that those religions in themselves serve a purpose to brining an individual to Christ or may serve as a Vehicle to Salvation.
–
‘A hypothetical case is not an exception to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
All references to salvation in Vatican Council II are hypothetical.’
–
Except Feeneyism has been explicitly been condemned by the Holy Office in 1949.
–
‘The reference was to other religions and Christian communities.’
–
Yes, as an inherent Right that is endowed by God as to be interpreted in the sense of the American Constitution. The Church has never in Her History argued that Heretics have a right to that error. Thus Vatican II contains the error insofar as to proclaim that Error has a Right.
–
‘ Does Vatican Council II say that those who are saved in other religions are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus? No.’
–
Vatican II states that other religions may serve as Vehicles for Salvation which is explicitly condemned by Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.
–
‘One can infer that they are exceptions but this would be a personal inference and it would be irrational. Since we cannot see the dead do they cannot be exceptions.’
–
Illogical argument. Your argument assumes that the person in judgement: A) belonged to another religion within that specific society (see Acts 17:23), B) that the personal inference would be by its nature an exception which again would be difficult in accordance to Acts 17:23. To state that you cannot see the dead so they cannot be exceptions is a rather unusual argument, but the main problem with the argument is that you assume the Judgement of God on the issue. How do you know the fate of an indvidual soul?
–
‘All who die outside the Church are on the way to Hell. This is the teaching of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7)’
So what of the Old Testament prophets? What of Moses? No Baptism.
–
‘If the Baptism of Desire leads to salvation without the baptism of water or with the baptism of water, the theologians must agree that we cannot name any single such case in 2014. So we do not have an explicit exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.Vatican Council II also does not say there are explicit cases.’
–
Yet again the Holy Office condemned Feeneyism.
–
‘If any one, even if he is a cardinal or a pope, says that we can see the dead on earth who are now also in Heaven and these deceased are visible in the flesh to him, are also explicit exceptions to all needing the baptism of water in the Catholic Church in 2014, then, this person, is factually wrong. The Holy Office 1949 made an objective mistake in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case. There are defacto no exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.’
–
How do you know they are in Heaven? So all Old Testament prophets were condemned to Hell fire because they predate Baptism? If you argue that was Old Law, that argument is invalid upon the basis that your argument of the Baptism of Water functions as a mark, which without there cannot be the guarantee of Salvation. That is Feeyenism.
–
‘The same objective error is being made in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.(LG 16 (saved in invincible ignorance) is considered an exception to AG 7 (all need faith and baptism for salvation).’
–
Except Invincible Ignorance usually applies to those who do not possess the Age of Reason or may suffer mental impairment. Not the everyday man. The exception would probably come under the example of Acts 17:23 in which all the pagan idols were rejected because they turned to the ‘unknown God’. Vatican II however is not Dogmatic, so it is an area of disagreement, and in any sense it would not contradict Extra Eccleisa Null Salus based upon the notion that they could not have the oppertunity to reject Truth or in the case of Acts 17:23 they sought Truth of which St. Paul preached.
–
‘Secondly, St.Thomas Aquinas supported Feeneyism. The man in the forest who is in ignorance is not an exception to the dogma which St.Thomas Aquinas upheld. St. Thomas said that God would send a preacher to teach and baptise him. So every one who is in Heaven, for St.Thomas Aquionas, is there with the baptism of water and Catholic Faith.’
–
Quote, because St. Thomas Aquinas taught Baptism of Blood (S.T. Teria Pars Q. 66, A. 11) which would according to Feeneyism, be invalid.
–
‘I am aware that Vatican Council II can be interpreted with Feeneyism or Cushingism, without the irrational premise( dead are visible) or with the irrational premise.I choose the rational interpretation.’
–
Which thus has to be interpreted in accordance with the Holy Office’s proclamation on Feeyenism in accordance with the History that the Church has never explcility condemned St. Thomas Aquinas’ notions of Baptism of Blood.
–
‘Similarly the SSPX can affirm Vatican Council II without the irrational premise. They would also be in harmony with Tradition, the dogma on salvation, the Syllabus of Errors, the Catechism of Pope Pius X etc.They could have it both ways. Vatican Council II and Tradition. Baptism of Desire and extra ecclesiam nulla salus.’
–
Except Vatican II cannot be interpreted Traditionally while it contains ambiguities and modernist philosophies. There is no way possible that a man can have the right to embrace a false religion, that is antithetical to the entire History of Church teaching and is in direct opposition to Christ’s teaching. Nor can the Church have the authority to safe guard the rights of Heresy itself.
–
‘If there is someone saved without the baptism of water(Good Thief?) he would not be known to us in 2014.’
–
Christ pronounced that the Good Thief will be in paradise, it is safe to assume that the Good Thief had a deathbed conversion.
–
‘ So it is irrelevant to the dogmatic teaching.’
–
The case of the Old Testament Prophets and the Good Thief maybe irrelevant to Dogmatic Teaching, but to dismiss their possible salvation upon the basis of the lack of Baptism has been that explicitly condemned by the Holy Office which you dismiss as erroneous (which was also assessed by Ottavani), so it’s not just Cushing.
–
‘Implicit for us baptism of desire, invisible for us baptism of desire is compatible with the ‘rigorist interpretation’ of Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Centers ,mentioned (criticized) in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.’
–
Feeney is not the Magisterium, and Tradition does not condemn the notion of Baptism of Desire.
–
‘Baptism of Desire is always theoretical and implicit for us. So it was never mentioned by the Church Councils as an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It was Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits in Bosto, who came up with this new theory of a visible baptism of desire which was an exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma.
Cushingism is irrational, non traditional and heretical.’
–
Baptism of Desire has never been condemned as Heresy throughout the History of the Church. The fact that a Doctor of the Church is able to teach Baptism of Blood without warranting any condemnation by the Magisterium on the matter is a rather telling silence. Especially given that Aquinas and Church teaching are directly interlinked, such silence would be rather alarming.
–
To put blame entirely upon Cardinal Richard Cushing is to demonstrate ignorance. Given that Cushing had nothing to do with the Holy Office, only introducing the Letter of the Holy Office, the actual authors of the Holy Office letter 1949 are Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani. and Ottaviani which stressed: ‘However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church…’and ‘Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.’
One last thing to note, ‘The Feast Of The Holy Innocents’ is dated at the late 4th Century to early 5th Century. The Holy Innocents never received Baptism.
Dear Mr Morphy, that is how we’ve got to the terrible situation that we’re in where the vast majority have abandoned the Faith and the moral life, and are in extreme danger of damnation. Of course, as people are now so dark of intellect and hardened in the will, the evil can now be presented in a less stealthy way.
Dear Paul Morphy,
Well said. And may I add to that…Married clergy have always been required to live as brother and sister with their wife,with his wife’s free given acceptance or rejection of this in order for the married man to be validly ordained. No problem the majority of modern day Catholics are not aware of this immemorial obligation as handed down by the apostles and even if they were,they most likely would be perfectly fine with removing this obligation which is seeped in theological foundations and purposes after all most of them have redefined marriage’s primary purpose to be the communion of souls and have rejected marriage’s primary purpose to be the procreation and education of children for God’s glory along with believing in the new false doctrine that separating the purpose of children from the purpose of unity in order to avoid having children is no longer considered a sin.
How can we not see the forked tongue that a great majority of the Catholics possess when they accept this widespread redefinition of marriage within our own church and by are own clergy. How can we not see their acceptance of all it’s rotten fruits of the sky rocketing numbers and ease at obtaining annulments and the reality of the great number of Catholics who with ease contracept and receive communion?
Yes, it certainly is true that the Church will never change it’s doctrines but the misguided layfaithful and clergy and church hierarchy sure can live and breath and scandalize others as though it has. And this new false church has been widly successful for these many past years at doing just that in this modern
day age.
Christopher:
One last thing to note, ‘The Feast Of The Holy Innocents’ is dated at the late 4th Century to early 5th Century. The Holy Innocents never received Baptism.
Lionel:
If someone receives salvation in 2014 without the baptism of water it would not be known to us. So this would be a possibility known to God. It would not be an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The baptism of desire , which is implicit and invisible for us, is compatible with the traditional (hard line) interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. We do not have to choose between one and the other.
So why do you give the example of the Holy Innocents who died without the baptism of water ?
If the Baptism of Desire is compatible with Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, which is contrary to the Feeneyist interpretation, then why are you arguing contrary?
Christopher
‘The issue is: is Vatican Council II contradicting the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?’
–
You avoided the question, how does a person belong to a ‘religion’ outside the Catholic Church if the individual renounces said religion and embraces what is essentially Catholicism? As to Vatican Council II contradicting the Dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, yes,
Lionel:
Please be specific and cite the text.
It would be helpful if you showed me where does Vatican Council II say there are explicit cases of persons saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16), a ray of the Truth(NA 2), imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3), seeds of the Word(AG 11) etc.
Also where does Vatican Council II state that there are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
______________________________________________
Christopher
by proposing that those religions in themselves serve a purpose to brining an individual to Christ or may serve as a Vehicle to Salvation.
Lionel:
Hypothetically as a possibility and always followed by the baptism of water, yes.
__________________________________________________
Christopher:
‘A hypothetical case is not an exception to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
All references to salvation in Vatican Council II are hypothetical.’
–
Except Feeneyism has been explicitly been condemned by the Holy Office in 1949.
Lionel:
Whether Feeneyism was condemned or not condemned all hypothetical cases are not exceptions to all needing the baptism of water in 2014 for salvation.
Whether Feeneyism was condemned for doctrine or discipline, whatever, Nostra Aetate 2 and Lumen Gentium 16 do not refer to known, explicit for us, seen in the flesh cases in 2014. This would be common knowledge.
________________________________________________
Christopher:
‘The reference was to other religions and Christian communities.’
–
Yes, as an inherent Right that is endowed by God as to be interpreted in the sense of the American Constitution. The Church has never in Her History argued that Heretics have a right to that error. Thus Vatican II contains the error insofar as to proclaim that Error has a Right.
Lionel:
The reference was to Vatican Council II being in agreement with extra ecclesiam nulla salus and so not contradicting the traditional teaching on other religions and Christian communities.
____________________________________
Christopher:
‘ Does Vatican Council II say that those who are saved in other religions are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus? No.’
–
Vatican II states that other religions may serve as Vehicles for Salvation which is explicitly condemned by Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.
Lionel: A non Catholic inspired by the Holy Spirit could convert into the Catholic Church and receive the baptism of water.
I was watching the video of Mario Joseph the ex Muslim Imam ( it can be seen in the forum section of Harvesting the Fruits of Vatican Council II).He was reading the Koran, especially the references to Jesus and Our Lady and his search for the Truth began. He is now a Catholic speaker and addresses thousands of Catholics at the Divine Retreat Centre in South India, to whom he speaks in many of the local dialects.He said that he was converted tby reading the Koran.
There could be other Mario Josephs whom we do not know and whom we can never know. So they would not be exceptions to all needing to convert this year into the Catholic Church for salvation.
_______________________________________
Christopher:
‘One can infer that they are exceptions but this would be a personal inference and it would be irrational. Since we cannot see the dead do they cannot be exceptions.’
–
Illogical argument. Your argument assumes that the person in judgement: A) belonged to another religion within that specific society (see Acts 17:23), B) that the personal inference would be by its nature an exception which again would be difficult in accordance to Acts 17:23. To state that you cannot see the dead so they cannot be exceptions is a rather unusual argument, but the main problem with the argument is that you assume the Judgement of God on the issue. How do you know the fate of an indvidual soul?
Lionel: The Letter of the Holy Ofice 1949 infers that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam. We do not know who is saved as such, we do not know the fate of any such individual, so the Letter has made an objective mistake. Objectively there are no exceptions.
_________________________________________
Christopher.-
‘All who die outside the Church are on the way to Hell. This is the teaching of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7)’
So what of the Old Testament prophets? What of Moses? No Baptism.
Lionel_ They had to wait in Abraham’s Bosom until the coming of the Messiah. After Jesus Died and had Risen he took them with Him to Heaven.
_____________________________________________
Chrstopher:
‘If the Baptism of Desire leads to salvation without the baptism of water or with the baptism of water, the theologians must agree that we cannot name any single such case in 2014. So we do not have an explicit exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.Vatican Council II also does not say there are explicit cases.’
–
Yet again the Holy Office condemned Feeneyism.
Lionel:
It would also be a ‘condemnation’ of the Church Councils, popes, saints and Vatican Council II (AG 7) with the same message.
______________________________________________
Christopher:-
‘If any one, even if he is a cardinal or a pope, says that we can see the dead on earth who are now also in Heaven and these deceased are visible in the flesh to him, are also explicit exceptions to all needing the baptism of water in the Catholic Church in 2014, then, this person, is factually wrong. The Holy Office 1949 made an objective mistake in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case. There are defacto no exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.’
–
How do you know they are in Heaven? So all Old Testament prophets were condemned to Hell fire because they predate Baptism? If you argue that was Old Law, that argument is invalid upon the basis that your argument of the Baptism of Water functions as a mark, which without there cannot be the guarantee of Salvation. That is Feeyenism.
Lionel:
After the Resurrection of Jesus, all need the baptism of water in the Catholic Church for salvation. ‘God the Father wants all people to be united in the Catholic Church(CCC 845), the Church is the only Ark of Noah that saved in the Flood (CCC 845), all need to enter the Church as through a door(CCC 846,AG 7).This is the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is also Feeneyism.
_________________________________________________
Christopher:
‘The same objective error is being made in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.(LG 16 (saved in invincible ignorance) is considered an exception to AG 7 (all need faith and baptism for salvation).’
–
Except Invincible Ignorance usually applies to those who do not possess the Age of Reason or may suffer mental impairment. Not the everyday man. The exception would probably come under the example of Acts 17:23 in which all the pagan idols were rejected because they turned to the ‘unknown God’.
Lionel:
Even if someone is saved in invincible ignorance it is a reference to salvation in Heaven and not of a person visible on earth. So it cannot be an exception to all needing to convert into the Catholic Church with no known exceptions. If there are no known exceptions there are no exceptions.
__________________________________________________
Christopher:
Vatican II however is not Dogmatic,
Lionel:
It would oppose dogmas if you assumed that the dead now saved in Heaven are visible to us and so are an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It would be a rejection of dogma since you would be saying outside the Church there is known salvation( even if you are only refering to some ghost).
It is this false premise which makes the Council contradict dogma.
___________________________________________________
so it is an area of disagreement, and in any sense it would not contradict Extra Eccleisa Null Salus based upon the notion that they could not have the oppertunity to reject Truth or in the case of Acts 17:23 they sought Truth of which St. Paul preached.
–
Christopher:
‘Secondly, St.Thomas Aquinas supported Feeneyism. The man in the forest who is in ignorance is not an exception to the dogma which St.Thomas Aquinas upheld. St. Thomas said that God would send a preacher to teach and baptise him. So every one who is in Heaven, for St.Thomas Aquionas, is there with the baptism of water and Catholic Faith.’
–
Quote, because St. Thomas Aquinas taught Baptism of Blood (S.T. Teria Pars Q. 66, A. 11) which would according to Feeneyism, be invalid.
Lionel:
Baptism of desire and baptism of blood do not contradict Feeneyism since they can only be judged and known to God. I cannot meet someone in 2014 who I know will be saved or has been saved with the baptism of blood etc and so did not need the baptism of water for salvation.
____________________________________________
LioneL:
‘I am aware that Vatican Council II can be interpreted with Feeneyism or Cushingism, without the irrational premise( dead are visible) or with the irrational premise.I choose the rational interpretation.’
–
Which thus has to be interpreted in accordance with the Holy Office’s proclamation on Feeyenism in accordance with the History that the Church has never explcility condemned St. Thomas Aquinas’ notions of Baptism of Blood.
Lionel:
The Church has never condemned them and they can be accepted as possibilities. However no Church document before the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 infers that the baptism of desire etc are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
So if they only mentioned the baptism of desire etc it would be fine. They are wrong to assume that it was an exception. This would mean that these cases existed in our reality on earth.This is irrational.
___________________________________________
Christopher:
‘Similarly the SSPX can affirm Vatican Council II without the irrational premise. They would also be in harmony with Tradition, the dogma on salvation, the Syllabus of Errors, the Catechism of Pope Pius X etc.They could have it both ways. Vatican Council II and Tradition. Baptism of Desire and extra ecclesiam nulla salus.’
–
Except Vatican II cannot be interpreted Traditionally while it contains ambiguities and modernist philosophies.
Lionel:
There is ambiguity when you use the false premise.Without the false premise Cardinal Walter Kaspar ,for example, could not show any text in Vatican Council II which is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
_____________________________________________
Christopher:
There is no way possible that a man can have the right to embrace a false religion, that is antithetical to the entire History of Church teaching and is in direct opposition to Christ’s teaching. Nor can the Church have the authority to safe guard the rights of Heresy itself.
Lionel:
You are referring to Dignitatis Humanae. The DH text refers to a state with a secular Constituion. It is saying that in a secular state ( and not a Confessional state) there is religious freedom for all religions. This is defacto accepted even by the SSPX . It is an objecitive reality in the present times.
In a Catholic Confessional state the religion would only be that of the Catholic Faith.
However even in Catholic Confessional states, historically, freedom was given to other religions.
__________________________________________
–
Christopher:
‘If there is someone saved without the baptism of water(Good Thief?) he would not be known to us in 2014.’
–
Christ pronounced that the Good Thief will be in paradise, it is safe to assume that the Good Thief had a deathbed conversion.
–
‘ So it is irrelevant to the dogmatic teaching.’
–
The case of the Old Testament Prophets and the Good Thief maybe irrelevant to Dogmatic Teaching, but to dismiss their possible salvation upon the basis of the lack of Baptism has been that explicitly condemned by the Holy Office which you dismiss as erroneous (which was also assessed by Ottavani), so it’s not just Cushing.
Lionel:
The issue is are there exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II to extra ecclesiam nulla salus?
The Good Thief in 2014 is not an exception to the dogma since we do not know any such case.
____________________________________________________
To be continued. I live in the outskirts of Rome and I do not want to miss the last bus.
The conversation is getting a rather bit disordered, so the quotations are gathered together from different areas of the post and unified, with a unified response. A few comments: The references to the Old Testament Prophets are irrelevant given that context of the discussion is Post-Resurrection, Abraham’s Bosom was known and understood, but upon assessment, it was not what Feeneyism argued and thus withdrawn, along with the Holy Innocents argument.
–
1) Religion: You have asked for explicit examples of individuals finding salvation through notions such as Invincible Ignorance and there are no explicit examples, mainly because the issue of Invincible Ignorance is potentiality. As to how Vatican II contradicts prior teachings, a quick summary can be seen with comparison to Church Teaching at CMRI [http://www.cmri.org/02-v2_non-christian.shtml ]. As to the Vatican II reference being in agreement with Extra Ecclesiam Null Salus, that is rather difficult to argue given that Dignitatis Humane explicitly states ‘the human person has a right to religious freedom.'(Para.2) It is a novelty that is not found in the entire history of the Church. The Church is essentially stating that an individual has a right to error which has been condemned over and over. As to the Muhammadeian, the faith itself is a Christian Heresy that permutated into a different religion, thus the Koran contains references like would Josephus. The Koran would not have converted him, but the certain elements of Truth within the Koran. You then reference that DH refers to a state with a secular Constitution, that is erroneous given that DH actually advocates a Secular State, not refers to a secular state. The SSPX does not accept what DH argues, namely because Catholic Confessional states have never guaranteed Rights to those who practice Heresy, only tolerance. It is most certainly an ahistorical interpretation in relation to Dignitatis Humanae.
–
2): Baptism of Water: Under the issue of the Baptism of Water you have argued that a convert could go into the Catholic Church and receive the Baptism of Water, however the issue does not address what happens to the individual who suddenly dies at the Church door before even entering the Church. Suppose the Muhammadien you referenced, was the said victim of the event above? He arranged a date for his baptism, he preached to his friends and family and on that day he was to be baptised, he dropped down dead. The Feeneyist interpretation would say he was damned because he was not baptised. That is what Baptism of Desire deals with, it does not in any way mean that Baptism of Water can suddenly be nullified and replaced. That is what the Holy Office 1949 was stressing in its condemnation of Feeyenism. You argue that the Holy Office 1949 proclamation is an exception to the Extra Ecclesiam Null Salus, but it is actually not contradictory, for the reason that it does not remove the necessity of Baptism, but it is in the context of Acts 17:23 prior to hearing St. Paul and the hypothetical death of a convert before being able to be baptised. You then stress that Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire are not contradictory to Feeneyism, but the Feeneyist’s argue that Baptism of Desire is erroneous given that if a person dies without Baptism of Water like above, they are condemned.
–
3) The Holy Office’s decision: You have argued that the Holy Office was erroneous in its decision to condemn Feeneyism, citing that previous Councils and Teachings are contradicted. However, The Holy Office cites the Council of Trent in its decision along with Pope Pius XII’s dogmatic letter on June 29, 1943’ See [ http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFFEENY.HTM ]. You mention that the Holy Office’s decision on the pronouncement of Baptism of Blood and Desire being exceptions to the Extra Ecclesiam Null Salus. The Holy Office has not stated they are exceptions but rather that ‘it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved.’ (see link)
–
4) Invincible Ignorance:You state that even if someone is saved in invincible ignorance, it is a reference to salvation in Heaven and not an exception to all needing to convert to the Catholic Church, you then state there are no known exceptions then there are no exceptions. However, the Holy Office states there is the possibility of someone being saved in invincible ignorance but in no way denies the necessity of baptism. If you acknowledge the potentiality of an individual saved in invincible ignorance, and the Holy Office has stated there is the potentiality of a person being saved in invincible ignorance, then what is the problem? You then state that it is a contradiction if the dead in Heaven are now visible, but that is not what is being argued. The only argument is there is a potentiality that a person can find salvation without Baptism of Water and in a state of Invincible Ignorance, without stating that said Baptism of Water is not necessary. You also mentioned that it would not contradict Extra Eccleisa Null Salus based upon the notion that they could not have the oppertunity to reject Truth or in the case of Acts 17:23 they sought Truth of which St. Paul preached. But without Baptism how could they obtain Salvation (Feeneyism)?
–
5) The Good Thief: The Good Thief proves that: a) Christ established Baptism before the Good Thief repented, b) The Good Thief repented upon the Cross, which means there is the potentiality of the Good Thief not obtaining Baptism, which means c) The Good Thief could have obtained the Baptism of Desire. Arguably, it’s not meant to contradict Dogma, and neither does the Holy Office in its argument.
Christopher and Lionel,
The lengthy discussion on EENS should be taken to the Forum. Secondly, there is evidence that the 1949 Letter was NOT written by someone in the Holy Office, but by Fr. Wright (Later Cardinal Wright). In other words, it was written on this side of the pond. It has, to me, no authority at all and it contradicts the infallible dogmatic statement of the Council of Florence.
For information on Cushing, Spellman, Wright and others, I recommend Randy Engel’s “Rite of Sodomy”. Enough said.
Christopher:
As to how Vatican II contradicts prior teachings, a quick summary can be seen with comparison to Church Teaching at CMRI [http://www.cmri.org/02-v2_non-christian.shtml ].
Lionel:
With reference to CMRI.
Meeting needed between Ecclesia Dei/CDF, SSPX,CMRI and others: all agree that the baptism of desire is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/08/meeting-needed-between-ecclesia-deicdf.html
Where does the Catholic Church teach that the baptism of Blood and of Desire are physically visible and known to us in the present times (2014) ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/07/where-does-catholic-church-teach-that.html#links
Sedevacantists, traditionalists,Departments of Theology suggest Blessed Pope Pius XII made a mistake
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/11/sedevacantists-traditionalistsdepartmen.html
Catholics are now aware- the Magisterium has made a mistake
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/07/catholics-are-now-aware-magisterium-has.html
Christopher:
Baptism of Water: Under the issue of the Baptism of Water you have argued that a convert could go into the Catholic Church and receive the Baptism of Water, however the issue does not address what happens to the individual who suddenly dies at the Church door before even entering the Church.
Lionel:
What you have mentioned here is irrelevant to the dogma.The baptism of desire has nothing to do with extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This was the Cushing-.Jesuit con game.
__________________________________________________
Christopher:
Suppose the Muhammadien you referenced, was the said victim of the event above? He arranged a date for his baptism, he preached to his friends and family and on that day he was to be baptised, he dropped down dead. The Feeneyist interpretation would say he was damned because he was not baptised.
Lionel:
The baptism of desire has nothing to do with the dogma.This person you refer to above does not exist in your and my reality.All this theology is irrelevant.
___________________________________________
Christopher:
That is what Baptism of Desire deals with, it does not in any way mean that Baptism of Water can suddenly be nullified and replaced. That is what the Holy Office 1949 was stressing in its condemnation of Feeyenism. You argue that the Holy Office 1949 proclamation is an exception to the Extra Ecclesiam Null Salus, but it is actually not contradictory, for the reason that it does not remove the necessity of Baptism, but it is in the context of Acts 17:23 prior to hearing St. Paul and the hypothetical death of a convert before being able to be baptised. You then stress that Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire are not contradictory to Feeneyism, but the Feeneyist’s argue that Baptism of Desire is erroneous given that if a person dies without Baptism of Water like above, they are condemned.
Lionel:
I do not know what you mean by Feeneyist. I am not using the apologetics of the St.Benedict Centers,USA. I am simply saying that for somethng to be an exeption it must exist. For someone to be an exception fundamentally he must exist. I am not into the familiar theology that can be read on the Internet.
________________________________________________
Christopher:
3) The Holy Office’s decision: You have argued that the Holy Office was erroneous in its decision to condemn Feeneyism, citing that previous Councils and Teachings are contradicted.
Lionel:
1.No Church document before 1949 said that the baptism of desire was visble to us.
2.No Church document before 1949 said that the baptism of desire was an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
3.And yes, there is no Church doument before 1949 which said that there were explicit exceptions to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus-
Christoper:
However, The Holy Office cites the Council of Trent in its decision along with Pope Pius XII’s dogmatic letter on June 29, 1943′ See [ http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFFEENY.HTM ].
Lionel:
Pope Pius XII and the Council of Trent only refer to implicit desire etc. They do not say that these cases are known and visible to us. They do not say that these cases are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Yet this has been inferred by the Letter of the Holy Office 1949..
Christopher:
You mention that the Holy Office’s decision on the pronouncement of Baptism of Blood and Desire being exceptions to the Extra Ecclesiam Null Salus. The Holy Office has not stated they are exceptions but rather that ‘it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved.’ (see link)
LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949
Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel:
‘knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ’, those who ‘know’ or Tthose who do not know and who are are saved with the baptism of desire are not known to us.Why mention this with reference to the dogma?.
In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man’s final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (, nn. 797, 807).
Lionel:
Why mention all this theology when you do not know a single such case in reality ? Did the Holy Office assume that these cases are visible and personally known exceptions?
The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel:
‘Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member.Why? Do you know of some exception in the area where you live?
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
Lionel:
So a person with implicit desire (which is not explici)t and one who is ‘involved in invincible ignorance’ are visible ? And so they are explicit exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? And ‘ that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member’?
These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel:
So the Letter is saying that Pope Pius XII assumed implicit for us cases are explicit exceptions to the dogma extar ecclesiam nulla salus and so ‘one may obtain eternal salvation’ under these conditions,and ‘ it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member’.Not always required that he be a member of the Church ?. Defacto, this would be heresy.
Discussing the members of which the Mystical Body is-composed here on earth, the same august Pontiff says: “Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.”
Lionel:
This is the traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It is Feeneyism. It will soon be contradicted.
Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who “are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire,” and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition “in which they cannot be sure of their salvation” since “they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church” (AAS, 1. c., p. 243).-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel:
He is referring to a hypothetical case and assumes that it is relevant to the dogma.
With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution, , in , n. 1641 ff.; also Pope Pius IX in the encyclical letter, , in , n. 1677).-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel:
‘With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire’ .In other words ‘ all united to the Church only by implicit desire’ are physically visible to us and so are explicit exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Centers were wrong.
From what has been said it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical , fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
Lionel:
They (From the Housetops) did not consider implicit desire as explicit for us and so an exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.They were saying that all need to be formal members of the Catholic Church with no exception.
Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a “Defender of the Faith,” and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities,
Lionel:
The lawful authorities in the Archdiocese of Boston were saying that there were known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
and has not even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons because of his serious violations of his duties as a religious, a priest, and an ordinary member of the Church.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel:
Fr.Leonard Feeney would be excommunicated in a few years after this, for holding the traditional interpretation of the dogma and the Archbishop would not deny reports in the secular media saying that the Church has changed its teaching on outside the Church there is no salvation. The Holy Office never objected.
Finally, it is in no wise to be tolerated that certain Catholics shall claim for themselves the right to publish a periodical, for the purpose of spreading theological doctrines, without the permission of competent Church authority, called the “” which is prescribed by the sacred canons.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel:
For Cardinal Cushing to say that there are known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus is heresy. It is also irrational.He was to give the imprimatur ?!
Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after “Rome has spoken” they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church “only by an unconscious desire.” Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel:
‘submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation’, when an irrationality is being taught.
________________________________________________
Christopher:
5) The Good Thief: The Good Thief proves that: a) Christ established Baptism before the Good Thief repented, b) The Good Thief repented upon the Cross, which means there is the potentiality of the Good Thief not obtaining Baptism, which means c) The Good Thief could have obtained the Baptism of Desire. Arguably, it’s not meant to contradict Dogma, and neither does the Holy Office in its argument.
Lionel:
O.K Christopher, but why do you mention it here ? Are there cases known in 2014 of the Good Thief? If there is a Dismas saved as such this year would it be relevant to this issue ?
Christopher:
4) Invincible Ignorance:You state that even if someone is saved in invincible ignorance, it is a reference to salvation in Heaven and not an exception to all needing to convert to the Catholic Church,
Lionel: Yes.
Christopher:
you then state there are no known exceptions then there are no exceptions.
Lionel:
Yes there are no known exceptions.They would have to be known to be an exception.
Chrstopher:
However, the Holy Office states there is the possibility of someone being saved in invincible ignorance but in no way denies the necessity of baptism.
Lionel:
Yes as a possibility fine, it would in no way deny the necessity of the baptism of water.
Christopher:
If you acknowledge the potentiality of an individual saved in invincible ignorance, and the Holy Office has stated there is the potentiality of a person being saved in invincible ignorance, then what is the problem?
Lionel:
Here there is no problem.
Christopher:
You then state that it is a contradiction if the dead in Heaven are now visible, but that is not what is being argued.
LIonel:
Here there is a problem.The Holy Office is saying that Fr.Leonard Feeney should also accept the baptism of desire with reference to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Christopher:
The only argument is there is a potentiality that a person can find salvation without Baptism of Water and in a state of Invincible Ignorance, without stating that said Baptism of Water is not necessary.
Lionel:
All need the baptism of water for salvation.Secondly we do not know of any exceptions to this teaching in the present times.
So how do you conclude that there are or could be someone saved without the baptism of water.
There is defacto, no known salvation outside the Church. So how can the Holy Office assume that there is some one known who is saved without the baptism of water in the present times.
As a hypothethical case there could be someone saved without the baptism of desire ( and you could also say that he has twelve toes and three eyes. I would not mind).In reality there is no such case.
Christopher:
You also mentioned that it would not contradict Extra Eccleisa Null Salus based upon the notion that they could not have the oppertunity to reject Truth or in the case of Acts 17:23 they sought Truth of which St. Paul preached. But without Baptism how could they obtain Salvation (Feeneyism)?
Lionel:
You are referring to theology. I am saying intellectually, philosophically we have to accept that the dead are not visible on earth.So they cannot be exceptions to all needing to be formal members of the Church to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.
Christopher:
If the Baptism of Desire is compatible with Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, which is contrary to the Feeneyist interpretation, then why are you arguing contrary?
Lionel:
The Baptism of Desire is not contrary to Feeneyism for me, since the Baptism of desire is for me, implicit, invisible not seen in real life.
I have to discuss this isssue since for the Vatican Curia, the SSPX, the sedevacantists CMRI, MHFM and others the baptism of desire is visible in the flesh.
They have extended this irrationality to their interpretation of Vatican Council II and now Pope Francis wants the SSPX to accept Vatican Council II with this irrationality for canonical status.
Dear Christopher:
In the church of Francis, parody is reality!
______
And I make the above observation with the utmost respect for both the man and the office.
______
Honest injun!
Yes, it seems it should be moved to the forums, if Lionel wishes to continue it there, then okay but I will cease replying due to it actually deviating off-topic. from the initial conversation.
The dogmatic sedes have been hoping for this for over 50 years now with no joy – no pun intended. You’ll keep waiting, and waiting… (and condemning, and condemning…)
Christopher:
Yes please take the discussion to the forum I will join you there.
Well, who am I to judge? TM
The carnival is just beginning.