Sep 3, 2007

Outside the Church, There is No Salvation

Erick asks that I publish a post on the Catholic teaching, "Outside the Church, there is no salvation" [Latin: 'Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus' (EENS)]. My original post, What Catholics do NOT Believe, recommended an EWTN website that republished seven points written in 1884, including:
7. Catholics do not believe that Protestants who are baptized, who lead a good life, love God and their neighbor, and are blamelessly ignorant of the just claims of the Catholic Religion to be the one true Religion (which is called being in good faith), are excluded from Heaven, provided they believe that there is one God in three Divine Persons; *that God will duly reward the good and punish the wicked; that Jesus Christ is the Son of God made man, who redeemed us, and in whom we must trust for our salvation; and provided they thoroughly repent of having ever, by their sins, offended God.
I'm a little confused on why there is a question on whether baptized Protestants are excluded from heaven, especially when there is a clear statement that they repent of having offended God. Moreover, baptism can be administered by anyone without regard to age, sex, religion, etc., so long as the matter (flowing water), intention (to do what Jesus and His Church intends), and form ("I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit") are correct.

Erick continues his comment:
So most importantly, I'd like to hear from educated parties as to what the position of the SSPX is on EENS. Why? Well, because the long-awaited Motu Proprio on the Tridentine Latin Mass has finally been published, and many folks throughout the world are expecting to see a proclamation of some kind regarding the canonical status of the SSPX folks within the Catholic Church. I believe that the SSPX's views on EENS will be key to any further discussions and/or publications from the Holy Father regarding the SSPX.

So, I've been reading many SSPX publications lately, given this prospect of new discussions between Rome and the SSPX. And within the SSPX's publications, I have read what appear to be extreme views on EENS; to the effect that only Catholics within the Holy Roman Catholic Church may be saved. Now, I am well-versed on the concept of EENS and its history within the Catholic Church, and I would like to use your forum to clear up for me whether or not the SSPX holds to an extreme position on EENS. I particularly welcome comments from SSPX folks themselves on this issue, should you agree to start a post on my suggested topic here.
I don't know what Erick has read, but the SSPX clearly refutes Fr. Leonard Feeney's challenge to the traditional Catholic understanding of three types of Baptism. [Fr. Feeney and his condemned teaching on baptism is described here.] An even more thorough presentation by the SSPX can be found in The Three Baptisms. The SSPX believes and teaches that Baptism can be instituted through water, desire, and blood. Archbishop Lefebvre would turn over in his grave if his SSPX did not accept the three means of Baptism.

The Three Baptisms published by the SSPX specifically notes that a person can be baptized by desire:
Saint Augustine, who held it because he once heard a sermon of Saint Ambrose, "On the Death of Valentinian" in which the saint states that the unbaptized 20-year-old emperor, who was murdered in the Alps while on his way to be baptized by Ambrose, had saved his soul because of his ardent desire for baptism and his supernatural virtue. In that sermon written by Saint Ambrose, he writes:

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

Very few have challenged St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus Ligouri, and St. Robert Bellarmine on baptism of desire. The current problem that Erick is referring to likely involves modernist interpretations of "baptism of desire" that allow the flimsiest understanding of a person's desire to be baptized.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states the traditional meaning of baptism of desire:
For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament. (1259)
Things get hazy when "desire" can be considered as implicit, rather than explicit. I am concerned when "implicit" desire is used to say that a cannibal, who "following his conscience" in "invincible ignorance" kills, roasts, and eats his enemies, can attain heaven. Sorry, but I am not persuaded.

Yes, I know that St. Thomas Aquinas states that the desire for Baptism can be either explicit or implicit, but he defines "implicit" as "contained" in something else (and I don't think he meant "contained" in a false religion!).
"Properly speaking, that is called IMPLICIT in which many things are CONTAINED AS IN ONE, and that is called explicit in which each of the things is considered in itself.” (Of Truth 14, 11)
I read Gary Potter's fairly objective book, After the Boston Heresy Case, in the late 1990s. The book is helpful in showing the confusion and errors associated with a modern understanding of an "implicit" desire to be baptized.

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thank you for putting this together for me! I hope this post will generate significant discussion.

So, here's what I have regarding an SSPX belief in EENS: The SSPX produced a booklet entitled 'Is Tradition Excommunicated? Where is Catholicism Today?', under a heading of 'A Collection of Independent Studies' through the Angelus Press (Kansas City, MO), Copyright 1993. I received a copy of this book from the SSPX a few months ago, when I requested some information from them via their online web pages. During all the commotion surrounding the impending MP and rumors about a possible action by Rome to remove the excommunications on the SSPX, I thought it best to educate myself on the history and theological positions of the SSPX.

So: In this booklet's Introduction (pg. i), the author notes that the essays which make up this booklet "are for the most part translated from a booklet entitled 'La Tradition excommuniee'", and were published in French by 'Courier de Rome'. The author further notes that at the time of its first printing in 1993, the booklet "had the renown of being the first collection of studies in the English language explaining the situation of Tradition within the Catholic Church." The name(s) of the original author(s) is(are) not given.

In the first essay, 'Neither Schismatic Nor Excommunicated' (Courrier de Rome, September 1988 [French]; Si Si no no [Italian]), the author by way of introduction to his essay points out that "a Catholic is constantly compelled, by necessity, to have to choose between Truth and "obedience," or in other words, between being a heretic or a schismatic." (page 1).

Over pages 1-4, the author summarizes these choices, as he sees them. On page three, one may read:

"He has to choose between the
Catholic dogma "outside the
Church there is no salvation"
and the present ecclesiastical
orientation which sees in non-
Christian religions "channels
to God" and declares that even
polytheist religions "are also
venerable"![14]"

"He has to choose between the
immemorial teaching of the
Church according to which
heretics and/or schismatics
are "outside the Catholic
Church"[15] and the present
ecclesiastical orientation
whereby between the "various
Christian denominations"
exists only a difference "in
depth" and "fullness of
communion"[16] and for which
consequently the different
heretical and/or schismatical
sects must be "'respected' as
churches and ecclesiastical
communities."[17]

References 14-17 are listed as follows:


14 'Osservatore Romano' of 9/17/1986: "Elements for a theological basis for the World Day of Prayer for Peace"; see also 'Civilta Cattolica' of April 20, 1985: "Christianism and Non-Christian Religions."

15 'Catechism of St. Pius X', No. 124

16 'Osservatore Romano' of 9/17/1986

17 Pope's greeting to "Christians" in St. Ruffin's Cathedral in Assisi: 'Osservatore Romano' of 10/27-28/1986.


As far as the references are concerned, I was not able to find backissues of the Osservatore Romano. But I did find an online PDF copy of the Catechism of St. Pius X. In that document, "No. 124" is a reference to the question "124 Q. What is an Indulgence?" So clearly, the numbering between the original copy of this Catechism and the PDF copy I was able to find do not match up. However, on page 28 of my PDF copy, I find the following material:

"27 Q. Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church? A. No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church."

Now, this is in an English translation of a document that the SSPX references to support their contention in the text I copied above from one of their booklets. However, I found this on the same page:

"29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved? A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation[.]"

So, it would seem to me that if this English translation of the Catechism of Saint Pius X is accurate, the SSPX got its wires crossed when they printed this booklet of theirs. Assuming, that is, that they wish to follow all of the teachings of their Namesake. Or, perhaps, the SSPX sees no contradiction between Question 27 and the words in Question 29: "is on the way of salvation." In other words, the fellow described in Question 29 is not guaranteed salvation, but is merely "on the way."

I also see the glaring differences in theology between the link you reference in your post to the SSPX article, "The Three Baptisms" by Father Joseph Pfeiffer. This article lists an original publication date of 1998, and points out that it was originally published in The Angelus magazine in the month of March of the same year.

So, I hope you can see my confusion; and my desire for a clarification from the SSPX. I hope some SSPX members join in the discussion of this post.

Also, I would love to hear from any SSPX members their opinion on what Holy Father wants to see happen in the SSPX before he can remove the excommunications, and make them fully "licit" within the Holy Roman Catholic Church. I can understand that there will be many differences of opinion on this issue, but the point is this: I don't fully understand what Rome wants to happen before it will remove the excommunications. Any help that can be provided on this point will be greatly appreciated.


Thank you,


Erick
erickhaas@yahoo.com

M. Alexander said...

One thing that has always confused me is that in the Creed we say,

"I believe in One Faith, One Baptism..."

Now how can we decide that there are 3 Baptisms? That seems contradictory to me.

I believe it is a "theory" that man may be saved by a so-called Baptism of Desire or Baptism of Blood. But I think the greatest argument against this notion is that we do not have single canonized saint (one we know is in heaven) who is not a Baptized and practicing Catholic at the time of their death.

If Protestants can expect salvation- why is it that none of them have been recognized by the Church as saints?

And if Protestants can be saved as they are, what is the definition of Indifferentism? How does this belief differ from the heresy of Naturalism?

Susan Manning said...

Fr Feeney's "teachings" were never condemned. He was excommunicated not for doctrine but for discipline.
His religious community the Slaves of the Immaculate heart of Mary were "regularized" and approved without having to refute any of the teachings of Fr. Feeney.

Anonymous said...

Athanasian Creed

Whoever wants to be saved should above all cling to the catholic faith.

Whoever does not guard it whole and inviolable will doubtless perish eternally

Catholic Mission said...

FR. FRANCESCO GIORDANO AFFIRMS CANTATE DOMINO, COUNCIL OF FLORENCE
The Italian diocesan priest Fr. Francesco Giordano studying at the Holy Cross University, Rome and working for his doctorate on the subject extra ecclesiam nulla salus says he affirms the dogma Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441.The ex cathedra dogma says all non Catholics, specifying, Jews, Protestants and Orthodox Christians needing to formally enter the Catholic Church to avoid Hell, which has fire.

One can affirm Cantate Domino which indicates everyone with no exception, de facto needs to enter the Church and, at the same time believe de jure; in principle, a non Catholic can be saved implicitly (baptism of desire etc) and it would be known only to God.

However Fr. Giordano’s position on 1) Fr. Leonard Feeney and 2) Lumen Gentium 16, Vatican Council II is not clear. He seems to contradict the dogma on these two points. Though, he told me at the Church Santa Maria di Nazareth, Boccea, Rome that he affirms Cantate Domino.


Fr. Giordano, who has studied at the University of Chicago, is a young priest fluent in English and Italian. He received his Licentiate from the University of St. Thomas Aquinas, Rome and the subject of his thesis there was outside the church there is no salvation.

Like St. Thomas Aquinas if one uses the defacto-dejure analysis it is possible to hold the ‘rigorist interpretation’ of the dogma and also affirm the baptism of desire (Council of Trent) and so not be considered a heretic. It does not have to be an either-or position i.e. the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or the baptism of desire.


Fr. Giordano believes Cantate Domino is compatible with Vatican Council II, Catechism of the Catholic Church and other Magisterial documents
CONTINUED
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/06/fr-franccesco-giordano-affirms-cantate.html#links

Catholic Mission said...

continued

Here is Cantate Domino.


“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” -Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441. Ex cathedra – from the website Catholicism.org


St. Thomas Aquinas affirms the ‘rigorist interpretation’ of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
"There is no entering into salvation outside the Church, just as in the time of the deluge there was none outside the ark, which denotes the Church." (Summa Theologica)
St. Thomas also says that there can be the man in the forest in invincible ignorance.




De Veritate, 14. : “It is possible that someone may be brought up in the forest, or among wolves; such a man cannot explicitly know anything about the faith. St. Thomas replies- It is the characteristic of Divine Providence to provide every man with what is necessary for salvation… provided on his part there is no hindrance. In the case of a man who seeks good and shuns evil, by the leading of natural reason, God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him…”
St. Thomas Aquinas is saying:


1. So de facto everyone on earth needs to enter the Church for salvation an there are no exceptions.De jure (in principle) there can be a person in invincible ignorance who can be saved.


Here we have no contradiction of the Principle of Non Contradiction.


2. St. Thomas Aquinas is saying for others :


De facto everyone on earth needs to enter the Church for salvation but there are de facto exceptions that we can know of (invincible ignorance etc). So everyone needs to enter the Church except for ….This is a contradiction of the Principle of Non Contradiction and irrational (defacto-defacto) .It is the political position of the secular media and the Angelicum, Gregorian and Opus Dei University in Rome.


Fr. Giordano agrees with the first (1) interpretation of St. Thomas Aquinas and extra ecclesiam nulla salus. However is he free to express it in his doctorate?


It would mean Lumen Gentium 16 does not say that we know of cases of non Catholics saved in the present times in invincible ignorance. If the Lumen Gentium text does not make this claim and rationally we cannot know any such case, then Vatican Council II does not contradict Cantate Domino - and we are back to the centuries-old interpretation.


Would the Opus Dei University accept this doctoral thesis?

continued

Catholic Mission said...

CONTINUED
We do not know any case of a person saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire (BOD). We don’t know any specific case. So we can accept BOD and invincible ignorance only in principle. We can know it only as a concept.


We can never know any such case in reality. We cannot meet someone who has been saved with BOD or in invincible ignorance. So it is never de facto; real, as is the baptism of water. The baptism of water is repeatable and visible. It is de facto.


So when we refer to the baptism of desire it is always de jure (in principle, acceptable). It can never be known in reality.


If it is not de facto to us it does not contradict Cantate Domino on extra ecclesiam nulla salus. (EENS)


So de facto Catholic Faith and the baptism of water are needed for all for salvation, with no exception.


While de jure, in principle, there can be persons known to God only who can be saved with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance (in the manner known to God).


So affirming the baptism of desire etc does not conflict with the interpretation of EENS according to Fr. Leonard Feeney. Fr.Leonard Feeney taught de facto everyone with no exception needed to enter the Church for salvation and de facto or de jure we do not know any case of the baptism of desire.


There is no de facto or de jure baptism of desire (implicit salvation) that we can know of as humans.


It is never de facto and so never in conflict with the dogma.


There can be a baptism of desire de facto known to God but it can never be defacto for us.


So the baptism of desire can never be known de facto and can only be accepted in principle I repeat. Since it can never be defacto known to us it does not oppose the dogmatic teaching. Since one accepts it in principle; as a possibility, one cannot be called a heretic. I cannot be called a heretic for rejecting the baptism of desire. I do not. I accept it in principle as a possibility known de facto only to God.Neither can I be called a heretic for affirming Cantate Domino. Since it refers to de facto everyone needing Catholic Faith and the baptism of water the same as Ad Gentes 7 and it is not in conflict with the Council of Trent's reference to the baptism of desire(implicit and dejure).

Since one is defacto and the other de jure it does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction as would a defacto-defacto irrational analysis.




We cannot know any case of implicit salvation i.e. baptism of desire, invincible ignorance, good conscience, partial communion with the Church as it is never de facto known to us. So it is not opposed to the dogma which indicates everyone needs to de facto enter the Church for salvation. The dogma says everyone with no exception needs to be a formal, de facto member of the Church for salvation. Everyone de facto needs Catholic Faith and the baptism of water to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.

CONTINUED

Catholic Mission said...

CONTINUED
Probably if Fr.Giordanao knew the truth on this subject and wrote it in his thesis , the Angelicum would not permit him to receive a Licentiate. They would not even approve the subject for ‘research’. At the Opus Dei University Fr. Francesco has chosen a seemingly harmless aspect of outside the Church the church there is no salvation. He will focus on a specific time period of the dogma and with reference to St. Thomas Aquinas.

Imagine him telling the professor at the Angelicum that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 supported Fr. Leonard Feeney on doctrine. The Letter referred to the ‘dogma’. The text of the dogma, Cantate Domino above, has the same message as Fr. Leonard Feeney; the Church teaches ‘infallibly’ that all Jews in Boston need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell. So how could Fr. Leonard Feeney could be excommunicated for heresy as the media and the Angelicum claim? Would they allow him to continue ?


Imagine him telling the professor at the Angelicum that there is no text in Vatican Council II which contradicts Cantate Domino.

Even now at the Holy Cross University can he challenge his professors to point out any text in Vatican Council II which contradicts Cantate Domino?


Similar errors as at the Angelicum are also being taught at the Opus Dei University. He could have to provide ‘research’ which is politically acceptable.
A common error at the Catholic Universities and traditionalist priests of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX),supporters of Fr. Leonard Feeney and sedevacantists Most Holy Family Monastery are:


They say there is no baptism of desire. They are correct there is no known case of a person saved with the baptism of desire. De facto in reality we don’t know any such case. So in this sense the vague phrase’ there is no baptism of desire’ is correct.


However in its nature, the baptism of desire can never be defacto for us. In its very nature, since it is known only to God; there is no de facto d baptism of desire for us.

It is only de facto for God and for us humans a concept, a possibility, acceptable in principle (de jure).


So the Most Holy Family Monastery(MHFM) reject the baptism of desire since they assume it is de facto and so contradicts the dogma Cantate Domini.

It would be contrary to the principle of Non Contradiction for the MHFM’s Dimond Brothers to accept a baptism of desire, which is, defacto for them. They must realize that the baptism of desire can never be known de facto and since it is dejure, known only to God, it does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction. So I can affirm Cantate Domino and also the baptism of desire (de jure, a possibility). This is not heresy as the MHFM would claim, since in principle I accept the possibility of a person being saved with the baptism of desire.

CONTINUED

Catholic Mission said...

CONTINUED
How does the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate at Boccea, where Fr. Francesco lives, respond to this issue? Fr. Francesco offers the Tridentine Mass at the Church there and often hears Confession.



The Parish Priest is Fr. Settimo Manelli FFI (Tel: 06-6156091 06-6156091 E-mail: santamariadinazareth@gmail.com ).I have been sending some of these posts on this blog, to Fr.Settimo and to Fr. John Francesco FFI, an American priest of the community who also lives at Boccea. Here there are some 30 Friars many of whom study Philosophy at the seminary in Boccea.They are taught by Fr. John Francesco and the other FFI priests. I would like them to answer these four questions about the Catholic Faith.

1. Do they hold to the ‘teachings ‘of the Church according to the media (New York Times, Boston Globe, Reuters etc) or according to Magisterial texts, on the subject of extra eccleisam nulla salus?


2. Do they interpret Vatican Council II and Fr. Leonard Feeney as an exception to Cantate Domino or do they see Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7) and the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston 1949, affirming Cantate Domino?


3. There can be no Tridentine Rite Mass without extra eccleisam nulla salus. To reject an ex cathedra dogma, in the name of Vatican Council II or whatever is heresy. It’s a mortal sin ?


4. Can we personally know cases of non Catholics saved in the present times with a good conscience, the Word of God, in partial communion with the Church etc?



Fr. Francesco Giordano who lives with the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate at Boccea affirms Cantate Domino and the baptism of desire. So he cannot be called a heretic. This has been a sad controversy in the Church. He affirms Cantate Domino and Vatican Council II. I am sure other priests will also follow him.
-Lionel Andrades

Catholic Mission said...

Father Leonard Feeney was not excommunicated for heresy: No Tridentine Rite Mass without Outside the Church There is No Salvation (Extra ecclesiam nulla salus)


If there is an objection that Fr. Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for affirming extra ecclesiam nulla salus, this is a falsehood. The 'dogma' referred to in the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston 1949 indicates that all Jews in Boston need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell.
Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.


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…-Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston (Emphasis added).


Here is the text of the dogma.


“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” -Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441. Ex cathedra – from the website Catholicism.org




So the Letter of the Holy Office referring to the 'dogma' supported Fr. Leonard Feeney on doctrine. The dogma (Cantate Domino) indicates all Jews in Boston need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell. This was exactly what Fr. Leonard Feeney taught.

There is no Church document which says that Fr. Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for heresy. There is no also no Church document which says that the Church has retracted extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The Church still upholds the dogma.

CONTINUED

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/06/father-leonard-feeney-was-not.html

Catholic Mission said...

CONTINUED


The diocese of Manchester, USA recently appointed a chaplain for the St. Benedict Centre, Richmond, New Hampshire and approved their chapel. The diocese of Worcester has granted canonical status to the St. Benedict’s Abbey monks and the Sisters of St. Benedict Center and the community in Still River, Massachusetts, St. Anns House. The Abbey was recognized as early as 1988 with the approval of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.All these communities inspired by Fr. Leonard Feeney uphold the ex cathedra dogma outside the church there is no salvation which is in accord with Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church 845, 846, Dominus Iesus 20 and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 issued during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII. They hold what the secular media calls 'the rigorist interpretation' of the dogma.


Their recognition by the diocese was also formally approved by Ecclesia Dei, Vatican since they use the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, permitted by the moto proprio Summorum Pontificium.The Tridentine Rite Mass, the Mass of the popes and saints.


Pius XII was saying in the Letter of the Holy Office all Jews in Boston need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water to avoid Hell. (1) The Letter (Haec Suprema) issued by Cardinal Ottaviani supported Fr. Feeney on doctrine and criticized him for being disobedient to the Archbishop of Boston, whom it was believed then, was faithful to the Church on doctrine. The first part of the Letter referred to doctrine/dogma and the second part to discipline/disobedience.


There is no Magisterial document which states that Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for heresy. The Letter of the Holy Office included in the Denzinger–Enchiridion refers to only ‘disobedience’. The Letter really supported Fr. Leonard Feeney with ‘the dogma’ it needs to be repeated. So it is factually incorrect to say the priest was excommunicated for heresy


There is no explicit or implicit Baptism of Desire that we know of and it is only explicit for God. The ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus clearly says everyone must be a VISIBLE; FORMAL member of the Catholic Church to go to Heaven and avoid Hell and there are no exceptions. The Jewish Left media created the phrase Boston Heresy Case and refer to a rigorist and non rigorist interpretation, as if there can be two interpretations of an infallible teaching . The rigorist interpretation is in accord with the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (845,846)


When Fr. Leonard Feeney and his communities say there is no baptism of desire they mean that there is no baptism of desire defacto or de jure (in principle) that we can know of. None of us knows any case of a person saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance.


The communities of Fr. Leonard Feeney in the USA accept the baptism of desire as a concept; as a possibility, in ‘certain circumstances’ (Letter of the Holy Office 1949). They have also provided a definition of the baptism of desire with its conditions on their website (Catholicism.org).


So it is false for a priest offering the Tridentine Rite Mass to reject the dogma Cantate Domino as it was known for centuries, claiming, that Fr. Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for affirming this very dogma.


There can be no Tridentine Rite Mass without extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

-Lionel Andrades
E-mail:lionelandrades10@gmail.com

Catholic Mission said...

THERE IS NO BAPTISM OF DESIRE THAT WE CAN KNOW OF- Fr.George Puthoor

Second Catholic priest in Rome affirms Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, on extra ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the church there is no salvation)


A second priest in Rom within a few weeks affirms Cantate Domino, Council of Florence pointing out that there is no baptism of desire that we can personally know of.


A Rossiminian priest from South India Fr.George Puthoor said yesterday, Sunday morning, that there is no baptism of desire that we can know of.


He was speaking with me at the Basilica Santi Ambrogio e Carlo, Via del Corso, Rome where he was to offer Holy Mass in Italian at 12 p.m on Trinity Sunday.He gave me permission to quote him on this blog.

Since the cases of non-Catholic saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance are de facto unknown to us and can only be accepted in principle it does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus he observed.

If there is no case of the baptism of desire or implicit faith that we know of then Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma Cantate Domino.



The secular media hype and those of the liberals have claimed that Lumen Gentium 16, Vatican Council II has changed church teaching with refrence to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Their claim is that every one does not have to enter the Church since there could be non Catholics saved with invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire.This is the claim of Wikipedia on the Internet, Catholic Answers and the Pontifical Universities and seminaries in Rome and abroad.They could quote Pope John Paul II on ‘silent apostasy’ in the Church, as if, they are not a part of it.


So when EWTN says everyone does not have to enter the Church to avoid Hell it is irrational. Since EWTN implies the baptism of desire is de facto known to us.


There is also no Magisterial text to support this position.

CONTINUED
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/06/there-is-no-baptism-of-desire-that-we.html#links

Catholic Mission said...

CONTINUED

Since we do not know any case of a person saved in invincible ignorance Fr. George Puthoor is getting rid of another modernist sacred cow- the lie about a priest, Leonard Feeney.


When Fr.Leonard Feeney said that there is no baptism of desire (that we know of) he was correct. There is no de facto baptism of desire that we can know of because of the very nature of baptism of desire. It is de facto only for God and never de facto known to us.


Fr.Leonard Feeney taught: everyone needed the baptism of water (given to adults with Catholic Faith) for salvation – and there were no exceptions, de facto.


He was affirming Cantate Domino. So how could he be excommunicated for heresy?


The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 refers to ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible’ teaching. The dogma Cantate Domino indicates all Jews in Boston ( and other non Catholics) need to convert into the Catholic Church to avoid Hell.


With Vatican Council II and Fr.Leonard Feeney ‘out of the way’ we are back to the centuries-old intrpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The centuries old teaching of the popes and saints is affirmed by the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church 846(Outside the Church no Salvation) says all people need to enter the Church as ‘through a door’. This does not conflict with CCC846 also saying all those who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church i.e. there are those 1) saved explicitly with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water and there are those saved 2) implicitly through the baptism of desire etc. and which is known only to God.


Fr. George Puthoor is the second Catholic priest in Rome who within a few weeks has affirmed Cantate Domino, which the Church has not retracted through any Magisterial document.. Earlier Fr. Francesco Giordano an Italian diocesan priest said the same.

Unlike these Catholic priests, the American sedevacantists Most Holy Family Monastery, NY, assume that the baptism of desire is known to us in the present times. They seem unaware that it can only be accepted in principle. It can only be a concept for us and real for God. So it does not contradict Cantate Domino. The sedevacantists reject the baptism of desire. This is heresy. They could be correct though, in saying that Catholic clergy, educational institutions and websites are in heresy and general apostasy on the issue of outside the church there is no salvation. .Since they deny Cantate Domino because they believe, like the sedevacantists, in a de facto baptism of deny known to us personally.
-Lionel Andrades

Catholic Mission said...

WILL GERRY MATATICS LEAVE SEDEVACANTISM ?


Gerry Matatics has communicated to us that he is in full agreement on sedevacantism and the salvation dogma. That is to say, Gerry holds the sedevacantist position and also agrees that is the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church that the Catholic Faith and the Sacrament of Baptism are absolutely necessary for salvation with no exceptions for “baptism of desire”- from the website of the Most Holy Family Monastery.


I Lionel Andrades wish to communicate to all that I am ‘in full agreement with the salvation dogma’. I agree to the ‘infallible teaching of the Catholic Church that Catholic Faith and the Sacrament of Baptism are absolutely necessary for salvation’, and there are no ‘ exceptions for ’ a de facto, known to us in the present times, “baptism of desire”.


However I am a member of the Catholic Church,faithful to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI and his predecessor popes and I am not a sedevacantist


In 2005 apologist Gerry Matatics , Founder and President, Biblical Foundations International http://www.gerrymatatics.org/ ,did not know there was an alternative.


Now I am saying that the baptism of desire in its very nature is not an exception to the dogma, since it cannot be defacto known to us ever ; we do not know anyone on earth saved with the baptism of desire ,invincible ignorance etc.


De facto every adult with no exception needs to enter the Catholic Church with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation.


De jure in principle, as a possibility known only to God, a non Catholic can be saved with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance in the manner God wants.We do not know any de facto cases. So it does not contradict the dogma Cantate Domino.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/06/will-gerry-matatics-leave-sedevacantism.html#links

Catholic Mission said...

Peter and Michael Dimond call people heretics: for the MHFM baptism of desire is de facto knowable and contradicts Cantate Domino

Commonsense says the baptism of desire in its nature is always known only in principle, de jure, so how can it contradict Pope John Paul II, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and numerous others charged as heretics and apostates.


Peter and Michael Dimond, sedevacantists of the Most Holy Family Monastery, NY are calling people heretics on their website. Since they believe that the baptism of desire is de facto and known personally and so contradicts Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, the ex cathedra dogma on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.


The baptism of desire is not like the baptism of water which is real, de facto, tangible, visible and repeatable. Everybody needs it for salvation and there are no exceptions. The baptism of desire is not an exception, to everybody needing the baptism of water. Since the baptism of desire is known only to God .It is not de facto and real for us.


The baptism of desire does not contradict the dogma as the MHFM state in their book on this subject and in comments all over their website.

Those who believe in this latter idea (that baptism of desire can apply to Jews or Muslims, etc.) would have to immediately abandon it upon seeing any of the infallible definitions on Outside the Church There is No Salvation. If not, they are definitely heretics who have been automatically excommunicated from the Church. One could not reasonably believe that members of non-Catholic religions being saved is compatible with Outside the Church There is No Salvation.

- page 167, The Dogma that there is No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church and without the Catholic Faith and refuting baptism of desire

They have been informed. These posts have been sent to them. If they persist would it not be calumny and scandal? A mortal sin?

Saturday, June 18, 2011
MOST HOLY FAMILY MONASTERY SEDEVACANTISTS CONSIDER BAPTISM OF DESIRE DE FACTO AND KNOWABLE IN THE PRESENT TIME
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/06/most-holy-family-monastery.html

Wednesday, June 22, 2011
SEDEVACANTISTS SLIP ON BOD UNDERSTANDING AND CRITICIZE POPE JOHN PAUL II
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/06/sedevanatists-slip-on-bod-understanding.html#links

Wednesday, June 22, 2011
MHFM SLIPS ON BOD DEFINITION AND CRITICIZES SSPX
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/06/mhfm-slips-on-bod-definition-and.html

Catholic Mission said...

Question: OK so are you saying that anyone who is not Catholic is going to Hell?

Lionel: Do you mean de facto or hypothetically?

De facto everyone on earth needs to be a Catholic, with Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water to go to Heaven and avoid Hell. (Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II etc).

Hypothetically; as a concept, in principle, a person can be saved with implicit salvation (baptism of desire etc) and it will be known only to God.

De facto we do not know any case of a person saved with the baptism of desire etc.

So are you saying that anyone who is not Catholic is going to Hell?

De facto; in reality, when I meet a non Catholic, I know he is oriented to Hell unless he converts into the Catholic Church.

De jure (in principle), a person can be saved in invincible ignorance etc and it would be known only to God.
-Lionel Andrades
e-mail:lionelandrades10@gmail.com