Latest topics
» Polish traditionalists handicapped : Archbishop Lefebvre made a mistake
Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:20 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney in the USA when they interpret Vatican Council II with the irrational premise deny the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:18 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Bishop Robert J.McManus and Brother Thomas Augustine MICM,Superior,St.Benedict Center,Still River,MA, interpret Vatican Council II with the 'possibilites are exceptions' error
Mon Nov 06, 2017 8:47 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX must be aware of the deception of Abp.Guido Pozzo and confront it
Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:57 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Two popes must ask all Catholics to affirm Vatican Council II (premise-free) as they do
Mon Oct 30, 2017 5:16 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary Still River Ma., could lose canomical status because of Feeneyism
Sat Oct 28, 2017 5:54 am by Lionel L. Andrades

»  Traditionalists oppose Pope Francis on morals but give him a pass on salvation
Fri Oct 27, 2017 10:06 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Someone needs to help Cardinal Luiz Ladaria, Archbishop Pozzo and Archbishop Di Noia see how they use a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II
Tue Oct 24, 2017 2:53 pm by Lionel L. Andrades

» Robert Siscoe and John of St. Thomas Respond to Fr. Cekada
Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:25 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Still no denial from Abp.Guido Pozzo : SSPX must accept Vatican Council II with a false doctrine and the new theology based on an irrational premise Image result for Photo of Archbishop Guido Pozzo
Mon Oct 23, 2017 7:03 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Five Catholic academics accept the development of doctrine on salvation and Vatican Council II but reject it on morals and the death penalty
Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:32 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Dr.Robert Fastiggi wants Bishop Donald Sanborn and Chris Ferrara to affirm a magisterium in heresy and schism like him
Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:30 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» ]Christine Niles uses the false premise to interpret magisterial documents
Sat Oct 21, 2017 5:30 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX has a right to canonical status when they correct their doctrinal error in the 'chart'
Fri Oct 20, 2017 6:25 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» No one shows Massimo Faggioli his precise theological and philosophical mistake
Fri Oct 20, 2017 6:07 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Rethink "Feeneyism"?
Fri Aug 11, 2017 6:02 pm by tornpage

» Brother Andre Marie MICM, the Prior at the St. Benedict Center does not correct Frs.Brian Harrison and Cekada,Bishops Sanborn,Pirvanus,Kelly and Fellay
Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:24 pm by MRyan

» Revisiting Diocese/Parish Screening Policy
Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:03 pm by MRyan

» When sedes and trads can accept that Pius XII made a mistake then popes since John XXIII are no more in heresy
Wed Jun 28, 2017 3:08 pm by MRyan

» Doctrinal talks were conducted with Fr.Gleize on 'the other side'
Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:08 am by Lionel L. Andrades


Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II is in accord with the sedevacantist position

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II is in accord with the sedevacantist position

Post  George Brenner on Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:37 am

Lionel said:
There are no exceptions to every one needing to be a visible member of the Church for salvation as taught by Fr.Leonard Feeney, the Councils, popes and saints


Lionel if you were to say that there are no exceptions to the Church teaching always and everywhere that one must be a visible member of the Church, outside which there is no Salvation and must be baptized with water you would be correct. Where we agree is that many in the Church have been lax or remiss in teaching the faith especially the last half century and thus misled souls on official Church teaching. You are misinterpreting the Church teaching on Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood.

JMJ,

George
avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II is in accord with the sedevacantist position

Post  MRyan on Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:53 am

Lionel Andrades wrote:

[A] When I say that we do not know any case of a person saved with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance I mean that these cases are explicit for God only. They are not visible to us.

[B] In the case of the baptism of water it is visible. It is repeatable. It is there before us.

You have yet to answer why any of this is relevant when A refers to visible salvation and B refers to visible Church membership; and when it is also true that the salvation of those in B is “explicit for God only.”
This is relevant since it is generally assumed, icluding on this forum, that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Similarly it is assumed that Vatican Council II LG 16 on innvincible ignorance and a good conscience are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. In other words since they are exceptions these cases miust exist so that they are visible to every body.
Once again, you have failed to address the logical fallacy and contradiction that exists between apples (A), an alleged state of visible salvation; and oranges (B), a state of visible Church membership.

Furthermore, it is only "generally assumed" by certain Feeneyites that the baptism of desire is an "exception" to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It is NOT assumed by me or by the SSPX, the FSSP or by any other non-Feenyite traditionalist group.

You are mistaken, and I have demonstrated why you are mistaken, but you just keep repeating the same fundamental errors as if Fr. Feeney's rigorist interpretation is how the Church understands her own dogma.

You also keep repeating the same logical fallacy that says "the error is assuming that we can physically see cases of the baptism of desire", by which you mean we can see their "salvation" ("the dead saved walking on earth.")

This is simply false.

One more time, you have not addressed the obvious and blatant logical fallacy where you suggest that because we can "see" external Church membership, we can see "salvation", thus; if we cannot see external Church membership, we cannot see salvation. Again, and again and again you conflate visible faith (even if not the true faith), charity and good intentions, as well as visible membership, with "visible salvation".

This is no different from me saying that there are souls who are baptized members of the Church who are saved by virtue of internal grace. And you would respond, "so, you see the salvation of 'dead men walking' on earth when you cannot see their salvation because you do not know with certainty the internal dispositions of their souls."

But I know "in principle" (infallible principle) that visible adult members of the Church are saved by being in a state of sanctifying grace, just as I know "in principle" (infallible principle) that non-formal and non-visible members of the Church in voto are saved by being in a state of sanctifying grace. I also know infallibly that the grace of salvation is derived solely from Christ through the sacrament of salvation, the Catholic Church.

Lionel Andrades wrote:(Citing Michael):
But, I would respond, once again, that the Catechumen is very much visible to us, (in principle) and is considered to be IN the Church, (in principle) even if not yet as a formal member. (in principle). So this Catechumen is not a case we personally know in 2013 since we do not personally know any Catechumen saved this year or last year.Since if this case does not exist it is irrelevant to the dogma.
No, not only "in principle" does the Church claim the Catechumen as one of her own, for she considers him already to be united to her in reality, but not formally so.

In this case, the catechumen's desire is visible, it is fervent and, objectively, it is real. And, what is manifested externally may be presumed to exist internally, though not infallibly so since the actual state of the soul is known to God alone. The bond of unity that configures the soul to Christ is every bit as "real" as membership in re, and, when it is manifested by fervent faith, charity and desire, the Church has every right to lay claim to the Catechumen as one of her own, and to offer the hope of salvation (by becoming finally united to her) to those souls of good will who may be impeded, through no fault of their own, from knowing her and/or from visible membership.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II is in accord with the sedevacantist position

Post  MRyan on Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:15 pm

Lionel wrote:
MRyan wrote:

But, as I keep telling you, internal unity with the Church is not an “exception”, it is an integral part of the same dogma for without them [faith, charity, intention] there is no salvation whether one is visibly united to the Church, or not.
O.K that is your theology.
No, that is not my “theology”; it is “an integral part of the same dogma”. It is an infallible truth, it is doctrine, and it is proclaimed as true by the living authoritative Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

I do not have to know the “theology” behind it to know it is true, but I do know it, so I can defend the truth.

Lionel wrote:

It is irrelevant to my saying that we cannot see the dead. We cannot see those with 'internal unity with the Church' and who are saved. So they cannot be exceptions to the teaching of the dogma that all need convert. All need to convert with faith and baptism (AG 7).
As I said, the Church sees the fervent faith, desire and longing of the catechumen, and lays claim to him as one of her own, though not formally so. If he dies before he can receive the sacrament, the Church will take the same care for his soul in Christian burial as she does the baptized, though she avoids any allusion to formal membership.

There are no exceptions to the dogma that all need to “convert” and to be regenerated into Christ, and by this the Church places its primary emphasis on the absolute necessity of conversion of the heart, which will unite a soul to the Church if conversion to the fullness of the Catholic faith is prevented by some obstacle beyond one’s control.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II is in accord with the sedevacantist position

Post  MRyan on Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:49 pm

Lionel wrote:
The baptism of desire can only be an exception to the dogma if it was visible. If we could see the dead saved walking on earth, then it would be an exception or relevant.
1. The baptisms of blood and desire are not exceptions to the dogma, they are integral parts of the dogma.

2. The catechumen is not seen as the dead saved walking , he is seen and considered as one of the Church's own; he is IN the Church, but not formally so.

3. The “dogma” Lionel is referring to is not the dogma as it is understood by the Church, it is the rigorist interpretation of Fr. Feeney by which it is alleged there is no salvation without visible external membership in the Church.

4. Even if one were to accept the rigorist doctrine of Fr. Feeney, it is a logical fallacy to hold that an exception to it must be visible in the sense of “the dead saved walking on earth”. If we cannot see the visible salvation of adult baptized Catholics, we cannot see the visible salvation of baptized non-Catholics, let alone the visible salvation of the non-baptized.

5. As such, what is visible to us is external membership; so too is fervent faith, charity and longing. The former is an objective condition (of extrinsic necessity); the latter is subjective, but absolutely necessary and intrinsic to salvation.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II is in accord with the sedevacantist position

Post  MRyan on Fri Jan 18, 2013 4:16 pm

Lionel wrote:

Michael I restricted myself to just one paragraph of the ITC paper which indicated that there was a baptism of desire which was an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney. If it was an exception then of course it means, the exception exists. We can see or personally know this exception. The baptism of desire is a possibility but it is not an exception.

There are no exceptions to every one needing to be a visible member of the Church for salvation as taught by Fr.Leonard Feeney, the Councils, popes and saints.
See my responses that affirm that we can "know", at least objectively, that baptism of desire exists.

And, as we already know, Lionel, the rigorist interpretation of the dogma by Fr. Feeney is NOT the interpretation of the dogma as it is taught by “the Councils, popes and saints”, and as it is taught by the living authoritative Magisterium. The 1949 Holy Office made this clear, and identified precisely where Fr. Feeney went afoul of tradition and the authentic Magisterium. This same Letter was referenced in Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, here:

16. ... Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. (Cfr. Epist. S.S.C.S. Officii ad Archiep. Boston.: Denz. 3869-72.)
Here are the pertinent extracts from the Letter on the correct understanding of the dogma that has and continues to be proclaimed by the “the Councils, popes and saints”:

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.

Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be incorporated by baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth.

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.

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 (<Denzinger>, nn. 797, 807).

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.

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.

But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: "For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him" (Heb. 11:6). The Council of Trent declares (Session VI, chap. eight): "Faith is the beginning of man's salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children" (Denzinger, n. 801).

From what has been said it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical <From the Housetops>, 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.
And, as I said in another thread:

Extra ecclesium nulla salus has two components, the first of which says that those who refuse to enter her or are obstinate in their schism against her, cannot be saved outside of her visible communion (i.e., Baptism, the profession of the true faith, subjection to the Roman Pontiff, etc.). The second of which says that just as there is no salvation apart from Christ, there is no salvation apart from His Body, the Church, such that anyone who is united ("joined") to Christ in the salvific bonds of faith and charity is ipso facto united to His Body, the Church, which is the true meaning of “Outside the Church there is no salvation”, as the Church teaches, and has always held.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II is in accord with the sedevacantist position

Post  MRyan on Fri Jan 18, 2013 4:52 pm

Lionel Andrades wrote:Michael,
The following two questions are not dealt with and you have gone into a theological swirl of which I cannot keep track off.
Actually, Lionel, I think you will find, with further scrutiny, that I am simply repeating the doctrines of the Church, while providing, when necessary, some theological groundwork in support of these same teachings. The rest consists of simple exercises in logic.

Lionel Andrades wrote:
For me the following is also acceptable.

“When we profess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins we are professing that our Lord instituted one sacrament of baptism for the forgiveness of sins, but we are not professing that the baptisms of blood and desire are not included in the one Baptism, for they certainly are, “in so far as they produce the effect of the Baptism of Water, likewise with being saved with a good conscience (LG 16), elements of sanctification (LG , seeds of the word(AG) etc.”

Would you agree?
I agree up until “likewise…”; for what follows is an embellishment of my original statement and I do not know what you mean by “saved with a good conscience”, since LG never says this. Also, “elements of sanctification (LG”) can mean sanctifying grace, but it must be understood in the context of explicit supernatural faith. And, “seeds of the word(AG) etc” may be understood as a preparation for the Gospel, but it is not clear to me what is meant without further context. If you mean this last part as the Church understands it, then I have no problem agreeing with the entire statement.

Lionel Andrades wrote:
Also,

When we profess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins we are professing that our Lord instituted one sacrament of baptism for the forgiveness of sins, but we are not professing that the baptisms of blood and desire are not included in the one Baptism, for they certainly are, “in so far as they produce the effect of the Baptism of Water- and so there are not three known baptisms but one known baptism, which is the baptism of water.

Would you agree?
No, for one may very well say there are three known baptisms, but we profess only one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins. In other words, the two known extra-sacramental baptisms are included in the profession of One Baptism for the remission of sins, since they effect the same essential ends, sanctifying grace and configuration into Christ.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II is in accord with the sedevacantist position

Post  Lionel Andrades on Sat Jan 19, 2013 4:46 am

George.

The Baptism of Desire is a possibility and not an exception

It is always a possibility and never an exception.It is accepted always in principle and can never be known defacto; in real life.

So it could never have been an exception to Fr.leonard Feeney's literal interpretation of the dogma on outside the church there is no salvation.

The Church accepts the baptism of desire but never says it is explicit.No Church document makes this claim.

Only the International Theological Commission(ITC) makes this claim.The ITC documents are non binding. They are not magisterial documents.The ITC makes the error of assuming that the implicit-to-us salvation is visible and so an exception to Fr.Leonard Feeney.It cites present day theologians, who make the same factual error.The ITC claims that the Magisterium has 'a more nuanced' understanding of this issue today yet the ITC is not able to quote any Magisterial text which supports their claim.

Neither does Pope Pius XII nor the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston state that these cases of always- implicit-to-us salvation are explicit for us.Neither is it said that these cases are explicit exceptions to Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center's literal understanding of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.If the Letter did make this claim it would be an objective mistake.Since we cannot see the dead saved who are exceptions to the dogma. The dead are not visible physically.There is no dead man walking saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.These are errors in the collected papers of the ITC book Documenti.It was approved by the last Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.It was also approved by Pope Benedict XVI.

The misunderstanding arose because they did not realize that the baptism of desire can only be a possibility and not an exception.It's an exception to nothing.As John Martigioni says, zero cases of something are not exceptions.

Every religious community in the Catholic Church can hold the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus along with accepted in principle only baptism of desire.It cannot be accepted as a known reality since we do not know any case.If something does not exist it cannot be an exception

Lionel Andrades

Posts : 260
Reputation : 384
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II is in accord with the sedevacantist position

Post  Lionel Andrades on Sat Jan 19, 2013 5:21 am

George
Lionel if you were to say that there are no exceptions to the Church teaching always and everywhere that one must be a visible member of the Church, outside which there is no Salvation and must be baptized with water you would be correct. Where we agree is that many in the Church have been lax or remiss in teaching the faith especially the last half century and thus misled souls on official Church teaching. You are misinterpreting the Church teaching on Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood.

George says
Lionel if you were to say that there are no exceptions to the Church teaching always and everywhere that one must be a visible member of the Church, outside which there is no Salvation and must be baptized with water you would be correct.


You are misinterpreting the Church teaching on Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood.

Lionel:
When I say that the Church teaches there is a baptism of desire it does not conflict with the teaching 'that there are no exceptions to the Church teaching always and everywhere that one must be a visible member of the Church'. Since the baptism of desire is only a possibility and never an exception.

So one can hold the 'strict interpretation' of Fr.Leonard Feeney along with the baptism of desire accepted in principle.

When you say there is 'no baptism of desire' you could also say there is no baptism of desire known in reality and there is only a baptism of desire accepted in principle .

There can be a baptism of desire known only to God and since there is no such case known to us, it does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus nor the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.

Lionel Andrades

Posts : 260
Reputation : 384
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II is in accord with the sedevacantist position

Post  Lionel Andrades on Sat Jan 19, 2013 5:31 am

Lionel Andrades wrote:
(Citing Michael):
But, I would respond, once again, that the Catechumen is very much visible to us, (in principle) and is considered to be IN the Church, (in principle) even if not yet as a formal member. (in principle). So this Catechumen is not a case we personally know in 2013 since we do not personally know any Catechumen saved this year or last year.Since if this case does not exist it is irrelevant to the dogma.

Michael says
No, not only "in principle" does the Church claim the Catechumen as one of her own, for she considers him already to be united to her in reality, but not formally so.

Lionel:
Yes in principle.We do not know any particular case in real life.
Why do you say 'not only in principle'?

Michael
In this case, the catechumen's desire is visible,

Lionel:
It is not visible to you Michael. It would be visible to the people who knew the catechumen.

Michael:
it is fervent and, objectively, it is real. And, what is manifested externally may be presumed to exist internally, though not infallibly so since the actual state of the soul is known to God alone.

Lionel:
Yes this is accepted in principle, in faith as a possibility but it is not 'manifested externally' to you Michael.

Michael:
The bond of unity that configures the soul to Christ is every bit as "real" as membership in re, and, when it is manifested by fervent faith, charity and desire, the Church has every right to lay claim to the Catechumen as one of her own, and to offer the hope of salvation (by becoming finally united to her) to those souls of good will who may be impeded, through no fault of their own, from knowing her and/or from visible membership.

Lionel:
Yes this is true,Michael.In principle we agree. However if you are assuming these cases are visible physically to you and me, we disagree.

Lionel Andrades

Posts : 260
Reputation : 384
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II is in accord with the sedevacantist position

Post  George Brenner on Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:21 pm

Lionel,

I believe that MRyan has covered at length your continual use of the words, 'Exception', 'walking dead' , No Salvation Outside The Catholic Church, Baptism by water, baptism of blood, baptism of desire and Invincible Ignorance. You repeatedly agree that you believe in the possibilities of baptism of blood, baptism of desire and Invincible Ignorance. Your continue stressing that they are not known to us serves no purpose in respect to what has already occurred in eternity for centuries in regards to baptism of blood, baptism of desire and Invincible Ignorance. You come dangerously close in my opinion as denying that God could , would, does and most importantly wills souls to be saved in this state and NOT as an exception but as one of his children who has earned Paradise. Be careful that you may not be judged by the same way that you judge. You come close to saying, why would God ever think of doing this? You come close to rejecting official Church teaching on this matter. Do not affront the will of God. Do not confuse the crisis in the Church by creating your own crisis. Where we are in agreement is that the Faith has not been taught with the passion and accuracy as Peter wills. Through misplaced charity(for God and Church to judge) we have not taught clearly the necessity of belonging to the One true Church and the necessity of Baptism by water. We constantly neglect that in addition to the absolutes that we must die in a state of grace, free from mortal sin. Have you personally encountered a person that believes that he/she will be saved by baptism of blood, baptism of desire , or invincible ignorance? I have not. Just live and teach the faith and let God do the rest. Yes there are countless loose cannons that stretch baptism of blood and baptism of desire to the absurd. I love Father Feeney and he saw the dangers in not holding relentlessly to NSOCC Church and Baptism by water and it is a tragedy that the meetings with him in Rome did not take place. There are countless references such as the one below that should have been helpful to you. His case is still a work in progress but already determined in eternity. If only we knew ! There have been clerics at all levels that have misrepresented the correct Church teaching on baptism of blood and baptism of desire and many today would be wise to read the posts of MRyan.

While not wishing to engage in this controversy, Msgr. Perl clearly confirms that Fr. Feeney died
in full communion with the Church, and that several of his spiritual descendants who hold his
same doctrinal interpretations are in full communion with the Church. Such a statement is clearly
within the mission of the PCED as this commission was established by Pope John Paul II to
oversee the reconciliation and well-being of traditionalists within the Church.
On that note, the evidence is clear: while the position held by Fr. Feeney and his spiritual
descendants may be controversial, holding these positions does not, in itself, place one outside of
the Catholic Church. In short, it is clear from the Church’s current pastoral and canonical
practice that the Church considers this an internal controversy, and that she acknowledges the
good standing of most of those who uphold a restrictive interpretation of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, baptism of blood and baptism of desire.
Pax Christi,
Pete Vere
Pete Vere, JCL
cc: Brother Matthew, MICM
St. Benedict Centre, Still River


JMJ,

Your friend

George

avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II is in accord with the sedevacantist position

Post  MRyan on Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:34 pm

Lionel wrote:

The Baptism of Desire is a possibility and not an exception

It is always a possibility and never an exception. It is accepted always in principle and can never be known defacto; in real life.

So it could never have been an exception to Fr. Leonard Feeney's literal interpretation of the dogma on outside the church there is no salvation.
In order to understand why Lionel keeps saying “The Baptism of Desire is a possibility and not an exception … to Fr. Leonard Feeney's literal interpretation of the dogma on outside the church there is no salvation”, one must first understand that if the dogma is understood as a literal dogmatic prescription against any form of salvific configuration (regeneration) into Christ that does not include visible material incorporation, then the “possibility” of such an extra-sacramental configuration that equips one for salvation is not only not “possible”, it is heretical. If Fr. Feeney’s literal "no exceptions" interpretation is true, then not only are there no exceptions, there is no possibility of salvation apart from material sacramental ablution and external incorporation.

Lionel, you appear to be trying to have it both ways, and I am simply removing the straw that you have constructed as pillars to your thesis.

Please note that we should not have to waste our time pointing out that Fr. Feeney never “dogmatized” his literal interpretation or that the present day St. Benedict Center considers the Church’s teaching on the baptisms of blood and desire “orthodox”, though, shall we say, mistaken. I am simply pointing out the logical consequence and necessary conclusion to a literal interpretation that rejects the salvific efficacy of the baptisms of blood and desire, supposing the literal interpretation is in fact true and not just some theological game we are playing involving equally valid systems of grace and salvation that boils down a theoretical conflict between respective “orthodox” systems.

No, if the Feeneyite literal interpretation is true, then the baptisms of blood and desire are false, even if one accepts their efficacy for sanctification, but not salvation. And that which is false cannot also be “possible”, let alone an “exception” to dogmatic truth.

Think about it, how can extra-sacramental sanctification and salvation be “possible” if it has been dogmatically defined that the ONLY means of sanctification and salvation is through material ablution in the sacrament? In other words, if an extra-sacramental path to sanctification/salvation, that is, the regenerative grace of Baptism, were open to mankind and could be effected by faith, charity and the desire for Baptism, then Fr. Feeney’s literal interpretation of the dogma is not a dogma at all, it is a theory (devoid of substantial conviction) about the dogma that allows for the possibility that its own rigorist interpretation is false, and yet it dares to place its theory on an equal level with the "explicit" Magisterial teaching of the Church.

The Church stands on firmer ground than that, and makes no such compromise with the truth when she assures us that she has always held the firm conviction that the baptisms of blood and desire are in fact efficacious toward salvation. This is why, Lionel, when columba calls the doctrine of the baptism of desire “heretical”, he is at least being consistent for it must be heretical if the “literal” interpretation is more than a theory, but represents dogmatic truth that does not compromise with error.

With that said, we can see now that when Lionel says the baptism of desire “is always a possibility and never an exception”, he is simply accepting the premise that the literal interpretation of the dogma cannot be taken too seriously, for if it were true, there would be no such possibility of extra-sacramental salvation. In other words, Lionel is saying, “for the sake of argument, no matter how illogical, please humor me and let’s pretend that Fr. Feeney’s interpretation is valid, and at the same time, so too is the baptism of desire, but only as a “possibility”, and never as “exception” to the dogma as Fr. Feeney understands it.

All of this talk that posits that the baptism of desire can “never be known defacto; in real life” is a smokescreen that assumes that the salvific efficacy of water baptism can be seen in real life, when the only thing that can be seen is its visible external incorporation and not interior sanctification (not in adults).

So when Lionel says “If something does not exist it cannot be an exception”, he is not saying that the baptism of blood and desire do not or cannot exist, but only that there is no visible sacramental sign of their existence, like that of Baptism, though even here we cannot be assured that interior regeneration has been effected in adults.

But for Lionel, this is all irrelevant, for he wants to impose the requirement of some extra-sacramental visible sign of external incorporation for visible proof that the baptism of desire "exists", and then say, when he knows perfectly well that not even the sacrament of Baptism can prove that interior regeneration exists in adults, that because there is no extra-sacramental sign of exterior incorporation, than the baptism of desire cannot be said to exist defacto in real life!

Please keep in mind that whenever Lionel says the baptism of desire "can never be known defacto; in real life", he is referring to a visible sign of exterior incorporation, as if baptism of desire cannot "exist in real life" without such a visible seal of incorporation. Lionel, your straw-man is coming apart.

And yet, when the Church accepts the faith-filled Catechumen as one of her own, she does in fact indicate that the baptism of desire does exist "in real life", at least objectively, in the faith, charity and intention of the Catechumen. Lionel is silent.

What Lionel is saying is precisely this, that sanctifying grace is not visible, therefore, in adults, “it can never be known defacto; in real life”, and yet he fails to admit that neither can the interior sanctification of an adult ever be known defacto, in real life. He also fails to make the distinction between that which can be known objectively in the external forum, and that which cannot be known except subjectively and only by God. The material sacramental ablution of an adult is a visible (but not infallible) sign of interior regeneration, as well as an infallible sign of exterior incorporation, even should the recipient be still-born with a dead faith. Not likely, but indeed possible.

And this has been the Feeneyite argument all along, that, while we know in adults we cannot see interior regenerations except by objective observation, the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus insists no one can be saved without exterior visible incorporation into the Church, which is not only a necessity of divine precept, but also an intrinsic necessity of means.

We’ll let Lionel explain how an extra-sacramental internal unity with the Mystical Body remains a valid “possibility” as a means of salvation if Fr. Feeney’s literal interpretation of the dogma were actually true.

Since one error begets another, I’ll address the rest of Lionel’s egregious errors and logical fallacies in a subsequent post, to include his discredited accusation against the ITC for erroneously “assuming that the implicit-to-us salvation is visible and so an exception to Fr. Leonard Feeney”. Not only does the ITC report not say this, or even imply it, note that Lionel cannot produce a single example of a baptized adult whose salvation is “physically visible” to us.

Not one.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II is in accord with the sedevacantist position

Post  columba on Sat Jan 19, 2013 2:42 pm

Well put Mike. (Bet you thought you'd never hear me saying that) Surprised

The ITC obviously agrees with your understanding and rejects Lionel's. If one accepts that baptism of desire can be salvific (whether its recipients are visible or not; because one day they will all be visible if they exist at all), then one rejects Fr. Feeney's understanding of baptism of blood. I think Lionel should replace the word "visible" with the word "known." It might help his case; but not for long.

avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II is in accord with the sedevacantist position

Post  Lionel Andrades on Sun Jan 20, 2013 9:33 am

George, Michael, Columba

If there are apples in a box and there is also an orange there once could sat that the orange is an exception because of its colour. It is also an exception because it exists.
If it did not exist it would not be an exception.

Similarly if there were a group of boys standing in one place and all of them are tall except for one, the one who is short, is an exception also because he is there.

Similarly the baptism of desire cannot be an exception to the dogma since there are no known cases, there is no visible case .

We accept the baptism of desire in principle it is a possibility known only to God but it cannot be an exception since an exception would mean there is one known person on earth in 2013 who is saved without the baptism of water, or who does not have to be a visible member of the Church to convert.

I accept the baptism of desire in principle as a possibility. I deny it being visible and known in 2013 to you and me.

So if you keep saying that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma ( and reject it) you are also implying that the baptism of desire is known and visible to you.

Then you assume that Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance etc) is also an exception to the dogma and so you assume that Vatican Council II is a break with the dogma and Fr.Leonard Feeney.

Lionel Andrades

Posts : 260
Reputation : 384
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II is in accord with the sedevacantist position

Post  MRyan on Sun Jan 20, 2013 10:26 am

Lionel,

Does sanctifying grace exist in adults?

If there is no visible known case of it in 2013, we can say that it is possible, but it is not an “exception” to the so-called “dogma” of outside of visible material incorporation, there is no salvation, for it has nothing to do with the “dogma” itself.

Do you understand that? That is exactly what you are telling us.

I’m still waiting for you to identify a visible and known case of salvation by visible external incorporation in 2013 (adults).

If you can’t, then why the double-standard?

You cannot see the logical fallacy of your thesis?

There are no "exceptions" to the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. And if you haven't figured it out by now, Fr. Feeney is not the proper authority for telling us that the dogma is limited to visible external incorporation.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II is in accord with the sedevacantist position

Post  George Brenner on Sun Jan 20, 2013 10:29 am


Lionel, I am confused! What part of this quote from MRYan did you not understand?


The baptisms of blood and desire are NOT exceptions to the dogma, they are integral parts of the dogma.

The catechumen is not seen as the dead saved walking , he is seen and considered as one of the Church's own; he is IN the Church, but not formally so.

When you admit to your personal belief, as you have posted countless times of Baptism of Desire in principle or a possibility either you believe it or you do not. If you do believe it then most of what you post contradicts your own belief or you are making a gesture to something begrudgingly that you really do NOT believe in. If you really DO believe in baptism of desire as a possibility than please ,please let the Church explain this to you according to Church teaching. You are very fervent in your faith but are in error on this subject. If we see a person wearing a baptism of desire shirt it is our duty in the course of teaching the faith to explain with love and charity that there is NO Salvation Outside the Catholic Church and He/She must be baptized with water and die free from mortal sin. There are countless "oranges" that may or may not ever become "apples" since you could not ever have any idea of the inner workings of the Holy Ghost and use of free will in that persons life. Enough of the walking dead, none seen in 2103 as if you could predict or see judgement of some hypothetical apples and oranges rather then souls on the cusp of eternity. What I still think that you are trying to say is that we must teach the Faith to all that they MUST have Baptism of Water and that there is NO Salvation Outside the Catholic Church. We should NEVER imply to anyone that we come into contact with that they can be saved in any manner other then NSOCC or Baptism by water. baptism of desire is incorporated into the plan of Salvation according to Church teaching and not your private interpretation.


JMJ,

George
avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II is in accord with the sedevacantist position

Post  Lionel Andrades on Sun Jan 20, 2013 11:32 am


Michael
Does sanctifying grace exist in adults?

If there is no visible known case of it in 2013, we can say that it is possible, but it is not an “exception” to the so-called “dogma” of outside of visible material incorporation, there is no salvation, for it has nothing to do with the “dogma” itself.

Do you understand that? That is exactly what you are telling us.

Lionel
Michael the issue is :is the baptism of desire an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? The issue is not if the baptism of water or sanctifying grace is an exception .

The issue is not can we see people saved in sanctifying grace recieved through the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance, who are exceptions to the dogma.

On this forum it is often assumed that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma. No one says that the baptism of water or sanctifying grace is an exception to the dogma.

On the ITC paper they assume that the baptism of desire etc is an exception to Fr.Leonard Feeney's understanding of the dogma.They do not assume that sanctifying grace or the baptism of water is an exception.


Lionel Andrades

Posts : 260
Reputation : 384
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II is in accord with the sedevacantist position

Post  Lionel Andrades on Sun Jan 20, 2013 11:39 am

Lionel, I am confused! What part of this quote from MRYan did you not understand?
The baptisms of blood and desire are NOT exceptions to the dogma, they are integral parts of the dogma.
The catechumen is not seen as the dead saved walking , he is seen and considered as one of the Church's own; he is IN the Church, but not formally so.

'The baptisms of blood and desire are NOT exceptions to the dogma, they are integral parts of the dogma.'

Lionel
For me they are not exceptions they are irrelevant to the dogma. I do not know what Mike means by' integral parts of the dogma'.

'The catechumen is not seen as the dead saved walking , he is seen and considered as one of the Church's own; he is IN the Church, but not formally so.'

Lionel:
If the catechumen saved is considered an exception to the dogma then is a dead man walking saved with the baptism of desire.

Yes he is one of the Church's own- we accept this in principle. Where we disagree is that none of us three knows this case personally. Since this case does not exist for us in cannot be an exception.
We can only accept it in principle and know it would be known only to God.

Lionel Andrades

Posts : 260
Reputation : 384
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II is in accord with the sedevacantist position

Post  Lionel Andrades on Sun Jan 20, 2013 11:56 am


George says:
When you admit to your personal belief, as you have posted countless times of Baptism of Desire in principle or a possibility either you believe it or you do not.
Lionel:
I believe it exists. Belief is something accepted in principle. In faith. Not seen, visibly.

George
If you do believe it then most of what you post contradicts your own belief or you are making a gesture to something begrudgingly that you really do NOT believe in. If you really DO believe in baptism of desire as a possibility than please ,please let the Church explain this to you according to Church teaching.

Lionel:
The Church refers to the baptism of desire.Magisterial texts does not imply that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma. The error is made by the ITC which is not magisterial. This was the error also of Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits at the time of Fr.Leonard Feeney. It is an error repeated in the secular media. They assume the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma.

George:
You are very fervent in your faith but are in error on this subject. If we see a person wearing a baptism of desire shirt it is our duty in the course of teaching the faith to explain with love and charity that there is NO Salvation Outside the Catholic Church and He/She must be baptized with water and die free from mortal sin.

Lionel
Yes there is no exception to the baptism of water and Catholic Faith for salvation.Every one in 2013 needs to convert into the Church visibly for salvation.This means there is no known baptism of desire, there is no person whom you will meet in 2013 saved with the baptism of desire or who is going to be saved with the baptism of desire.

George:
There are countless "oranges" that may or may not ever become "apples" since you could not ever have any idea of the inner workings of the Holy Ghost and use of free will in that persons life.

Lionel:
The point I was trying to make with the apples and orange example is that something must exist for it to be an exception.

George:
Enough of the walking dead, none seen in 2103 as if you could predict or see judgement of some hypothetical apples and oranges rather then souls on the cusp of eternity.

Lionel:
So when you say there is no baptism of desire you need to qualify the statement.
Even the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney accept that a catechumen can be saved with the baptism of desire (Charity, desire) which will be followed with the baptism of water.So in principle they do not deny the baptism of desire.

Other traditionalists also accept the case of the catechumen (with charity and desire) and assume that the baptism of water is not needed. They believe that the catechumen can be saved.
In both cases they accept the baptism of desire in principle.

George:
What I still think that you are trying to say is that we must teach the Faith to all that they MUST have Baptism of Water and that there is NO Salvation Outside the Catholic Church.

Lionel:
Yes.

George:
We should NEVER imply to anyone that we come into contact with that they can be saved in any manner other then NSOCC or Baptism by water.

Lionel:
Correct.

George:
baptism of desire is incorporated into the plan of Salvation according to Church teaching

Lionel:
Yes

George:
and not your private interpretation.

Lionel:
And not as explicit,known cases in 2013

Lionel Andrades

Posts : 260
Reputation : 384
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II is in accord with the sedevacantist position

Post  George Brenner on Sun Jan 20, 2013 2:21 pm

Lionel,

We are getting closer. The known or unknown cases are a non starter , actually a non issue. No one hopefully would ever say , look yonder there walks a saved soul by baptism of desire. No one would or should exclaim that we as Catholics have no mission to teach someone the truth by justifying it that they are good people and will work things out just fine. ( therein lies a great amount of the reason for the crisis in the Church,imho} Only proclaimed Saints are known to us for certainty along with the Blessed Trinity, Blessed Mother and those we honor as being in Heaven. Of this we can be certain. Baptism of Blood and baptism of desire as Church teaching in no way excuses us from teaching baptism by water and the necessity of belonging to the One true Church

From Saint Cyprian:
" Habere non potest Deum patrem, qui ecclesiam non habet matrem (He cannot have God for his Father who does not have the Church for his Mother);.... and where this is concealed or explained away, faith becomes weak, charity languishing, and Catholicity hardly distinguishable from one of the sects."




In our prayers and to our non-Catholic contacts , we must stress that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, the only Church founded by Our Lord, and we strongly exhort them to study carefully this assertion and supernatural surety of the Catholic Church, having the good will to peruse true Catholic teaching in love and charity.
We need to remember that even through our own Catholic Faith that our salvation is by no means assured and we should struggle daily to battle the world, the flesh, and the devil. This should be a motivation to read and to learn about the Church, to seek out the Truth and live our faith.


JMJ,


George

avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II is in accord with the sedevacantist position

Post  Lionel Andrades on Mon Jan 21, 2013 5:47 am

George,
JMJ
You have cited Peter Vere...

Peter Vere makes the same mistake

If there are apples in a box and there is also an orange then the orange is an exception because of its colour. It is also an exception because it exists.If it did not exist it would not be an exception.

Similarly if there was a group of boys standing in one place and all of them are tall except for one, the one who is short, is an exception also because he is there.He exists there.

So the baptism of desire cannot be an exception to the dogma since there are no known cases, there is no visible case. It does not exist explicitly for us.

We accept the baptism of desire in principle, it is a possibility, known only to God but it cannot be an exception.Since an exception would mean there is one known person on earth in 2013 who is saved without the baptism of water, or who does not have to be a visible member of the Church to convert.It would mean such a person exists.But we don't know any such person?

If one says there are exceptions to something then it is implied that something must exist to be an exception. This is common knowledge.

Here is the canonist Peter Vere making the same mistake.
While not wishing to engage in this controversy, Msgr. Perl clearly confirms that Fr. Feeney died in full communion with the Church, and that several of his spiritual descendants who hold his same doctrinal interpretations are in full communion with the Church. Such a statement is clearly within the mission of the PCED as this commission was established by Pope John Paul II to oversee the reconciliation and well-being of traditionalists within the Church.

On that note, the evidence is clear: while the position held by Fr. Feeney and his spiritual descendants may be controversial, holding these positions does not, in itself, place one outside of the Catholic Church. In short, it is clear from the Church’s current pastoral and canonical practice that the Church considers this an internal controversy, and that she acknowledges the good standing of most of those who uphold a restrictive interpretation of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, baptism of blood and baptism of desire.
Pete Vere, JCL
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25059967/Peter-Vere-Canon-Lawyer-on-the-status-of-those-who-hold-Fr-Leonard-Feeney-s-Doctrinal-Position

He assumes that the Catechism of the Catholic Church contradicts the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Also for him the baptism of desire is really an exception since for him these cases exist in the present times, they are real and known personally.This is implied when someone says the baptism of desire is an exception.

Peter Vere writes 'while the position held by Fr. Feeney and his spiritual descendants may be controversial...'.Its controversial for him.Since he assumes Fr.Leonard Feeney's communities reject the baptism of desire defacto, in real life. For him the baptism of desire is always explicit and known.

There is no concept of in principle baptism of desire for Peter Vere. Otherwise he could say that the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Fr.Leonard Feeney's communities refer to the baptism of desire as a possibility, accepted in principle only.It is explicit only for God.

Similarly in two theological papers of the International Theological Commission it is assumed that those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This error was overlooked by all.

The Baptism of Desire is always a possibility and never an exception

The Church accepts the baptism of desire but never says it is explicit. Only the International Theological Commission(ITC) makes this claim.The ITC documents are non binding. They are not magisterial documents.The ITC makes the error of assuming that the implicit-to-us salvation is visible and so an exception to Fr.Leonard Feeney.The same error of Peter Vere.

Lionel Andrades

Posts : 260
Reputation : 384
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II is in accord with the sedevacantist position

Post  Lionel Andrades on Mon Jan 21, 2013 5:56 am

Michael
See my responses that affirm that we can "know", at least objectively, that baptism of desire exists.

Lionel:
How can the baptism of desire be seen objectively?
We can only accept it in faith.

Michael:
The 1949 Holy Office made this clear, and identified precisely where Fr. Feeney went afoul of tradition and the authentic Magisterium. This same Letter was referenced in Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, here:

16. ... Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. (Cfr. Epist. S.S.C.S. Officii ad Archiep. Boston.: Denz. 3869-72.)

Lionel:
This is an in principle statement so it does not contradict Fr. Leonard Feeney.

Michael:
Here are the pertinent extracts from the Letter on the correct understanding of the dogma that has and continues to be proclaimed by the “the Councils, popes and saints”:


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.

Lionel:
The text of the 'infallible statement',defined three times does not mention the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance. So it supports Fr.Leonard Feeney here.

Michael:
Letter of the Holy Office
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.

Lionel:
The text of the 'dogma' supports Fr.Leonard Feeney's position.

Michael:
Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be incorporated by baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth.

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.

Lionel:
Those who know and do not enter cannot be saved. These cases would be judged by God. We cannot judge them. Since these cases are unknown to us they are irrelevant to Fr.Leonard Feeney's position.

to be continued.


Lionel Andrades

Posts : 260
Reputation : 384
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II is in accord with the sedevacantist position

Post  Lionel Andrades on Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:30 am

continued

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 (<Denzinger>, nn. 797, 807).

Lionel: An in principle statement. Fine.

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.

Lionel:
In principle we accept 'that 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. In reality we do not know any such case so it is not an exception to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
Still there is nothing which contradicts the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonrd Feeney and the popes and saints.


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.

Lionel: Implicit desire is not visible for us. We cannot meet anyone saved with implicit desire . So it is irrelevnt to Fr.Leonrd Feeney.

to be continued

Lionel Andrades

Posts : 260
Reputation : 384
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II is in accord with the sedevacantist position

Post  MRyan on Mon Jan 21, 2013 2:29 pm

"So when you [Lionel] constantly repeat such things as 'In both cases the error is assuming that we can physically see cases of the baptism of desire', you are falsely assuming that those who accept the Magisterial teachings of the Church on the baptisms of blood and desire (the Universal Church) ALSO accept Fr. Feeney’s 'mistaken exclusivist ecclesiocentrism' on 'no salvation outside of visible external membership' (as it is understood by the Church)."

Lionel wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Does sanctifying grace exist in adults?

If there is no visible known case of it in 2013, we can say that it is possible, but it is not an “exception” to the so-called “dogma” of outside of visible material incorporation, there is no salvation, for it has nothing to do with the “dogma” itself.

Do you understand that? That is exactly what you are telling us.
The issue is not can we see people saved in sanctifying grace received through the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance, who are exceptions to the dogma.
First of all, no one is “saved in sanctifying grace received through … invincible ignorance”, so let’s get that misstatement out of the way right up front.

The issue, as you falsely frame it, is can we see people saved through the baptism of desire (sanctifying grace) who, if they are saved, are visible “exceptions” to the dogma that says, allegedly, that no one can be saved without visible and external Church membership. By this you mean baptism of desire does not manifest itself by visible external incorporation in the Church, but only by external dispositions that give the objective appearance of faith, charity and intention, by which the Church accepts the Catechumen already as one of her own.

Therefore, you say, if baptism of desire cannot be “seen” to make one a visible member of the Catholic Church, than it cannot be an “exception” to what you say is the true dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus – no salvation outside of visible external membership in the Church.

And that is where your entire thesis falls apart, for that is not how the Church understands her own dogma, and never has. You have established a false paradigm by which the univocal prime directive for salvation is corporal visible membership in the Church; therefore, if an adult is saved, he can only be saved by way of this same visible membership, or his salvation is not part of the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

God, you would have us believe, has reserved exclusively for Himself, and apart from His revealed dogma, a separate means of salvation that entails internal unity with His Body through the salvific efficacy of the baptisms of blood and desire, but has given His Church and mankind another (the "true") dogma that doesn’t recognize these extra-sacramental means. Say what?

So, you say, the baptisms of blood and desire are not “exceptions” to the dogma of salvation by external visible membership alone, they are stand alone doctrines of salvation reserved for God alone, though for some strange reason the Church is rather insistent in teaching that she herself has always held these doctrines as part of the one dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. Funny, that.

In other words, following Lionel’s logic, one means of salvation cannot be an “exception” to the other, they are parallel paths to salvation (ordinary and extraordinary), both requiring unity with the Church (one in re, the other in re or in voto); both requiring internal sanctification, and in neither case can salvation (for adults) be known except by God. But, they are two distinct doctrines on salvation, both of which insist there is no salvation outside the Church!

And, of course, Lionel will insist, on his own authority, that only the "ordinary" means of visible incorporation represents the "true dogma" of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

You have constructed, Lionel, the perfect and irrefutable logical fallacy. It is irrefutable and impenetrable - if only because it refuses to consider that the first premise that is presented as infallibly true, is actually and demonstrably misunderstood, and therefore, false.

One would think that the constant never-ending stream of so-called "contradictions" to the true dogma Lionel keeps citing, you know, contradictions emanating from "the current magisterium", the Cardinal prefect to the CDF, etc., etc. etc., Lionel might begin to suspect that there just might be something wrong with his theory. But, in true Feeneyite fashion ... well, you get the picture.

Let’s back up:

Lionel wrote:
I am repeating the traditional theology (ecclesiology) of every one needing to be a visible member of the Church for salvation and there are no known exceptions. This is compatible with the Catechism of the Catholic Church (846) saying all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church.
Two logical fallacies right from the start. You assume that Fr. Feeney’s dogma is valid because everyone who is saved, is saved as visible members of the Church, because, you say, the Church says there are no exceptions. But never has the Church taught there are no exceptions to visible Church membership when necessity dictates.

So you begin with a false premise, and it just goes downhill from there, one logical fallacy after another.

When the Church says there are no exceptions to salvation outside the Church, she means no one is exempt from being visibly united to the Church – which is necessary as an extrinsic necessity of means, in re, or at least in voto through the internal bonds of faith, charity and intention.

This is why, as you said, “[t]his is compatible with the Catechism of the Catholic Church (846) saying all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church.”

So if someone is internally united to the Church and is saved extra-sacramentally (outside of visible communion), this is in fact an exception to the divine necessity as a precept, but not to the divine necessity of means to a final end, which may be fulfilled in re or in voto.

In other words, you are NOT “repeating the traditional theology (ecclesiology) of every one needing to be a visible member of the Church for salvation and there are no known exceptions”, you are repeating the errant Feeneyite private interpretation of the dogma that says there is absolutely no salvation outside of visible Church membership; meaning not only is it NOT “possible” to be saved by baptism of desire, there are no “exceptions”, period.

You then falsely allege that the Catechism, Ad Gentes, the 1949 Holy Office Letter, etc., teach the same dogma as Fr. Feeney, and you are simply and factually incorrect.

Lionel said:

On this forum it is often assumed that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma. No one says that the baptism of water or sanctifying grace is an exception to the dogma.
“On this forum it is often assumed”, by whom? Give us just one example.

Lionel wrote:
“On the ITC paper they assume that the baptism of desire etc is an exception to Fr. Leonard Feeney's understanding of the dogma. They do not assume that sanctifying grace or the baptism of water is an exception” and “he [the Prefect for the CDF] has written that the baptism of desire etc are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.”.
You keep saying it and I keep denying it. Your alleged “proof” where you say it is “implied” is no proof at all. What the ITC report actually says is this (your citation):

10. Exclusivist ecclesiocentrism—the fruit of a specific theological system or of a mistaken understanding of the phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus—is no longer defended by Catholic theologians after the clear statements of Pius XII and Vatican Council II on the possibility of salvation for those who do not belong visibly to the Church (cf, e.g., LG 16; GS 22).-International Theological Commission, Christianity and the World Religions 1997. (1)
Because the “Exclusivist ecclesiocentrism” is no longer defended does not mean that it was once the accepted interpretation of the dogma; it was not, it simply means that the “mistaken exclusivist ecclesiocentrism” that was formally defended by a few theologians, is no longer defend by any theologians.

So how do you go from the obvious meaning of the text to the “assumption” that “the baptism of desire etc is an exception to Fr. Leonard Feeney's understanding of the dogma”, when the report rejects Fr. Feeney’s mistaken understanding of the dogma?

Even IF the Cardinal prefect for the CDF accepted as plausible Fr. Feeney’s “exclusivist” understanding of the dogma, if someone is saved apart from visible external membership, this is in fact an “exception” to his exclusivist “dogma”, or the word “exception” has no meaning. The dogma of Fr. Feeney says there is no salvation outside of visible external (material) membership in the Church, so if some is saved without visible external (material) membership, this is NOT an exception to visible material membership? Of course it is.

So when you constantly repeat such things as “In both cases the error is assuming that we can physically see cases of the baptism of desire”, you are falsely assuming that those who accept the Magisterial teachings of the Church on the baptisms of blood and desire (the Universal Church) ALSO accept Fr. Feeney’s “mistaken exclusivist ecclesiocentrism” on "no salvation outside of visible external membership" (as it is understood by the Church).

So, you begin with a false premise and then conclude that the ITC report or members of this forum must “physically see cases of the baptism of desire” if they hold that baptism of blood and baptism of desire exist – as “exceptions" to the dogma!

Your entire argument is a straw-man, for if someone does not accept Fr. Feeeny’s “mistaken understanding of the phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus”, and accepts, rather, the Church’s Magisterial teachings on the baptisms of blood and desire as being integral parts of the one dogma, then one cannot be accused of “physically seeing cases of the baptism of desire” as IF he holds that baptism of blood and baptism of desire exist – as “exceptions" to the dogma!

So we can dismiss out of hand your broken-record mantra that says:

The present Magisterium assumes that we know cases of persons saved in invincible ignorance and so it is a defacto exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus? This is factually incorrect. We do not know those who are in Heaven except for the saints.
Just as we do not know the visible members of the Church who are in Heaven except for the saints.

But, more to the point, you simply fall once again into the same logical fallacy derived from your false and factually incorrect premise that assumes that the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is understood by the Church as meaning no one can be saved who is not visibly and externally united to the Church – period, when we known in fact that she teaches this as a necessity of precept, as well as an extrinsic necessity of means that recognizes that one may be united to Christ’s Body in reality, as well as in desire (faith, charity, intention).

This is NOT a “principle”, it is a factual doctrine.

Lionel wrote:

The ITC paper contradicts itself. It states:

(A) The Second Vatican Council has reiterated this faith conviction: “Basing itself on Scripture and tradition, it [the Council] teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door.
Then it [the ITC report, citing the 1949 Holy Office Letter] states:

(B) “To gain eternal salvation, it is not always required that a person be incorporated in reality (reapse) as a member of the Church,

B does not contradict A since it is accepted only in principle.
No, B does not contradict A since it is accepted as the correct understanding of the dogma “A”, and then goes on to tell us how "the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door” may be realized in reality, or in desire.

Lionel wrote:

It then says

(C) It is not always necessary that this desire be explicit as it is with catechumens.

C does not contradict A since we do not personally know this catechumen. So if he does not exist in 2013 how can he be an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Yes, we do know this Catechumen, and we know, by the objective manifestation of his faith and desire, that he already belongs to the Church, even if not yet a formal member. No, we do not “know” with infallible certitude that he will be saved, but only that he is assured of salvation if his dispositions are sincere, just like Baptized adults have the same assurance if they have the proper dispositions (the common denominator being a state of grace).

He is NOT “an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus”, he is a living example of the dogma, for, provided that his dispositions are sincere, he will be saved IN the Church, even if not as a formal member.

Lionel wrote:
If he is an exception to all needing faith and baptism for salvation then he must be a dead man walking on the earth saved with the baptism of desire and visible to us human beings.
Nonsense, there are no exceptions to needing supernatural faith and baptism (regeneration into Christ) for salvation, so this is a false argument.

Lionel wrote:
The dead are not visible to us as the ITC implies.This is a factual error on their part.
It implies no such thing, but states quite emphatically and clearly that the “Exclusivist ecclesiocentrism” of Fr. Feeney is “mistaken”.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II is in accord with the sedevacantist position

Post  George Brenner on Mon Jan 21, 2013 5:42 pm

Lionel,

Your understanding of baptism of blood and baptism of desire is wrong. You admit in your words that it exists in principle and then continue to contradict your own belief.

These were father Feeney's words:
It is sinful to call men to salvation by offering them "Baptism of Desire." If this so-called substitute for Baptism of Water were in any sense usual, or common, or likely — or even practical — Jesus Christ would never have told His Apostles to go forth and baptize with water for the regeneration of the world.


If only Father had gone to Rome to discuss and remedy his understanding of Baptism as the Church understands and teaches Baptism in truth. Father Feeney in my opinion most certainly foresaw the current and catastrophic problems of not teaching the Faith in absolutes. Many in the Catholic Church ceased to teach the faith and all but eliminated the need for conversion to the one true Church and began to imply or personally believe or predominantly became silent in teaching the faith. No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church and Baptism by water has all but ceased to exist in catechesis. If some were as concerned about teaching the faith and safeguarding and protecting reverence as they were about the possible mercies of God for non Catholics ( excluding catechumins and unbaptized infants ) we would have reduced or eliminated the Crisis of Faith.


JMJ,

George
avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II is in accord with the sedevacantist position

Post  George Brenner on Mon Jan 21, 2013 9:07 pm

Lionel said:

On this forum it is often assumed that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma. No one says that the baptism of water or sanctifying grace is an exception to the dogma.



“On this forum it is often assumed”, by whom? Give us just one example. (reply from MRyan )

I have the same question. Please explain.


JMJ,

George

avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II is in accord with the sedevacantist position

Post  George Brenner on Mon Jan 21, 2013 9:17 pm

Lionel,

When you say that YOU believe in Baptism of desire in principle, do you believe in the definition of " in principle " .... A principle is a law or rule that has to be, or usually is to be followed, or can be desirably followed, or is an inevitable consequence of something.
If yes or no for that matter, please explain.


JMJ,

George
avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II is in accord with the sedevacantist position

Post  Lionel Andrades on Tue Jan 22, 2013 4:47 am

George
When you say that YOU believe in Baptism of desire in principle, do you believe in the definition of " in principle " .... A principle is a law or rule that has to be, or usually is to be followed, or can be desirably followed, or is an inevitable consequence of something.
If yes or no for that matter, please explain.

Yes, George I am glad you asked this question.

When I say that I believe in the baptism of desire in principle then it is saying that that it is a rule, or a teaching of the Catholic Church. So I follow it. Since it is in principle, it is in general, it is a rule.

In principle, I also believe that we humans in general cannot see the dead.As a rule the dead are not visible to us who are saved and are now in Heaven.

Extend it further, as a rule something cannot be an exception to something else, if it does not exist.

Similarly, in principle I accept the law of non contradiction (as Jehanne explained it well in another thread). So accepting something in principle is not a contradiction with accepting something in real life, in reality.One is theoretical the other is real and visible. One is theoretical the other is concrete.

Lionel Andrades

Posts : 260
Reputation : 384
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II is in accord with the sedevacantist position

Post  Lionel Andrades on Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:14 am

continued
Michael
Letter of the Holy Office 1949
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 (<Denzinger>, nn. 797, 807).

Lionel:
Again accepted in principle as a teaching of the Church. It does not refer to any specific person whom we know. So it is not a contradiction to every one needing to be a visible member of the Catholic Church in 2013 to be saved. It does not contradict Fr.Leonard Feeney.

Instead it was the Archbishop of Boston who assumed that these cases were exceptions to the dogma, implying that these cases are known personally to us and so could be exception. For him these cases existed, to be exceptions.

This is heresy. It is rejecting an infallible teaching.
This Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was interestingly directed to him.

Letter of the Holy Office 1949
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.

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
.

Lionel:
Again the reference to the baptism of desire is in principle. There is no known case on earth. There is no objective, visible case saved with the baptism of desire. So it is irrelevant to the position of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
If there are apples in a box and there is also an orange then the orange is an exception because of its colour. It is also an exception because it exists.
If it did not exist it would not be an exception.

Letter of the Holy Office 1949
But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: "For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him" (Heb. 11:6). The Council of Trent declares (Session VI, chap. eight): "Faith is the beginning of man's salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children" (Denzinger, n. 801).

Lionel:
As as above. It is accepted in principle.It is accepted in faith.
Implcit desire is always a possibility and never an exception.It is accepted always in principle and can never be known defacto; in real life.

So it could never have been an exception to Fr.Leonard Feeney's literal interpretation of the dogma on outside the church there is no salvation.

Letter of the Holy Office 1949
From what has been said it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical <From the Housetops>, 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.

Lionel:
Here if the Letter of the Holy Office assumes that the Archbishop of Boston's understanding of the dogma is the correct one then it made a mistake. Since the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are not exceptions to the dogma.

Secondly if the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 is critical of Fr.Leonard Feeney for denying the baptism of desire etc then this is a factual,objective mistake on their part.We cannot see the dead. We cannot see the dead saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire, so they do not exist to be an exception. These cases are explicit only for God. So they are irrelevant to the literal interpretation of the dogma as it was known for centuries.

In this passage they could be critical of Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center for general disobedience.The following passages indicate it was for disobedience. If they were referring to doctrine only, then the Letter would be contradicting the earlier part, in which it supports Fr.Leonard Feeney on doctrine.

Zero cases of something are not exceptions- John Martigioni

In reality there are no known cases of persons saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.

In principle we accept the possibilty of a person being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire and these cases would be known, visible, only to God


Michael
And, as I said in another thread:
Extra ecclesium nulla salus has two components, the first of which says that those who refuse to enter her or are obstinate in their schism against her, cannot be saved outside of her visible communion (i.e., Baptism, the profession of the true faith, subjection to the Roman Pontiff, etc.).

Lionel:
Yes.Agreed.
It also means that those who have Original Sin on their soul are oriented to Hell unless before they die they convert into the Catholic Church for salvation.

Michael:
The second of which says that just as there is no salvation apart from Christ, there is no salvation apart from His Body, the Church, such that anyone who is united ("joined") to Christ in the salvific bonds of faith and charity is ipso facto united to His Body, the Church, which is the true meaning of “Outside the Church there is no salvation”, as the Church teaches, and has always held..

Lionel:
True.Agreed. And this second part does not contradict the first part in the sense, every one on earth in 2013 needs to be a visible member of the Church for salvation; to go to Heaven and avoid Hell, and there are no known exceptions, there are no exceptions.
___________________________________________________

In a prepared statement for the press the former Jesuit added: "The conscience difficulty is that the diocese of Boston, under the auspices of Archbishop Cushing, and Boston College, under the auspices of Father John J. McEloney, S.J., both notably ignorant in the field of Catholic theology ... are teaching that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church." - Father Feeney Is Dismissed From Jesuit Order by Rome
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1949/10/29/father-feeney-is-dismissed-from-jesuit
/

Lionel Andrades

Posts : 260
Reputation : 384
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II is in accord with the sedevacantist position

Post  Lionel Andrades on Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:46 am

George asks:

Lionel said:
On this forum it is often assumed that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma. No one says that the baptism of water or sanctifying grace is an exception to the dogma.

“On this forum it is often assumed”, by whom? Give us just one example. (reply from MRyan )

I have the same question. Please explain.

The following is from George's posts on this thread:
If you really DO believe in baptism of desire as a possibility than please ,please let the Church explain this to you according to Church teaching.

Enough of the walking dead, none seen in 2103 as if you could predict or see judgement of some hypothetical apples and oranges rather then souls on the cusp of eternity.

Your continue stressing that they are not known to us serves no purpose in respect to what has already occurred in eternity for centuries in regards to baptism of blood, baptism of desire and Invincible Ignorance.

You come dangerously close in my opinion as denying that God could , would, does and most importantly wills souls to be saved in this state and NOT as an exception but as one of his children who has earned Paradise.

You come close to rejecting official Church teaching on this matter.

There have been clerics at all levels that have misrepresented the correct Church teaching on baptism of blood and baptism of desire and many today would be wise to read the posts of MRyan.

If you really DO believe in baptism of desire as a possibility than please ,please let the Church explain this to you according to Church teaching.
This is not what the Church teaches?The Church teaches, in Magisterial texts that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma? The Church has stated this clearly in some text?

Enough of the walking dead, none seen in 2103 as if you could predict or see judgement of some hypothetical apples and oranges rather then souls on the cusp of eternity.

If there are exceptions to the dogma then does it not mean there are people saved on earth who are visible exceptions? When you assume that there are exceptions you imply there are the walking dead saved who are personally known to you.

You reject the walking dead error being made. Since it could not be clear to you that when you say there are exceptions you are immediately implying the dead are visible and saved and known to you.

Elsewhere you have said that we cannot meet on the street the dead saved with the baptism of desire. This is correct. However elsewhere, George,as mentioned here you contradict yourself.

Your continue stressing that they are not known to us serves no purpose in respect to what has already occurred in eternity for centuries in regards to baptism of blood, baptism of desire and Invincible Ignorance.

'Your continuing stressing that they are not know to us serves no purpose', since George could not be aware that he sees the baptism of desire as an exception to the dogma and Fr.Leonard Feeney.

You come dangerously close in my opinion as denying that God could , would, does and most importantly wills souls to be saved in this state and NOT as an exception but as one of his children who has earned Paradise.

This line George, makes it clear that you still do not have an insight into what I am saying.

Souls are saved with the baptism of desire this is the teaching. They are saved as one of His children who has earned Paradise.God wills souls to be saved in this state, we agree here.
But the Church in its magisterial texts does not state that they are exceptions.If it did it would be a contradiction.

You come close to rejecting official Church teaching on this matter.
The official teaching is that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma ? Or is it the offical teaching that there are no exceptions to the traditional dogma?

According to the secular media, to the International Theological Commission, Peter Vere, Fr.Francois Laisney of the SSPX and many well meaning traditionalists there are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.For them there are exceptions since they assume that these cases exist, they are known, they are visible.

There have been clerics at all levels that have misrepresented the correct Church teaching on baptism of blood and baptism of desire and many today would be wise to read the posts of MRyan

MRyan also assumes that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and to Fr.Leonard Feeney's traditional interpretation of the dogma.
If you would like me to give you examples from his posts I could.

Lionel Andrades

Posts : 260
Reputation : 384
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II is in accord with the sedevacantist position

Post  Lionel Andrades on Tue Jan 22, 2013 10:50 am

The baptism of desire has nothing to do with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This was the ‘drama’ of the Archbishop and Jesuits of Boston

Peter Vere, Fr.Francois Laisney of the Society of St.Pius X(SSPX),EWTN, the International Theological Commission, the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Fr.William Most and Mnsgr.Fenton, Jeff Mirus of Catholic Culture, Catholics United for the Faith, Catholic Answers and cardinals and archbishops of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, all assume that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and also to Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II,which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.

In other words the dead- saved exist on earth for them, these cases of the deceased saved with baptism of desire etc in 2013 are visible for them, to be exceptions.They are exceptions to the teaching that every one needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church for salvation.

If there are apples in a box and there is also an orange then the orange is an exception because of its colour. It is also an exception because it exists.If it did not exist it would not be an exception.Similarly if there was a group of boys standing in one place and all of them are tall except for one, the one who is short, is an exception also because he is there.He exists there.So the baptism of desire cannot be an exception to the dogma since there are no known cases, there is no visible case. It does not exist explicitly for us.

When they all correct this error they will find that there is no basis for the liberal interpretation of Vatican Council II.

The Council is traditional and in agreement with the SSPX position on other religions, ecumenism and religious liberty

Lionel Andrades

Posts : 260
Reputation : 384
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II is in accord with the sedevacantist position

Post  Lionel Andrades on Tue Jan 22, 2013 10:59 am

Michael:
First of all, no one is “saved in sanctifying grace received through … invincible ignorance”, so let’s get that misstatement out of the way right up front.

Lionel:
Whether anyone is saved or not you and I would not be able to judge.

The issue, as you falsely frame it, is can we see people saved through the baptism of desire (sanctifying grace) who, if they are saved, are visible “exceptions” to the dogma that says, allegedly, that no one can be saved without visible and external Church membership. By this you mean baptism of desire does not manifest itself by visible external incorporation in the Church, but only by external dispositions that give the objective appearance of faith, charity and intention, by which the Church accepts the Catechumen already as one of her own.

Lionel:
'But by internal dispositions that give the objective appearance of faith,chairity..' you can detect someone who has this objective appearacance? Do you know anyone?

Mike
Therefore, you say, if baptism of desire cannot be “seen” to make one a visible member of the Catholic Church, than it cannot be an “exception” to what you say is the true dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus – no salvation outside of visible external membership in the Church.

Lionel
If you cannot see any case saved with the baptism of desire then do not assume that it is an exception in 2013 to every one needing to be a visible member of the Church.If something does not exist for you it cannot be postulated as an existing exception.

( I have not responded to the rest of the post since you have gone on a theological round and I do not understand what you are saying or assuming that I am saying)

Lionel Andrades

Posts : 260
Reputation : 384
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II is in accord with the sedevacantist position

Post  Lionel Andrades on Tue Jan 22, 2013 11:11 am

Michael:
Two logical fallacies right from the start. You assume that Fr. Feeney’s dogma is valid because everyone who is saved, is saved as visible members of the Church,

Lionel:
False.
The dogma is valid because every one on earth in the present times needs to enter the Church to be saved.

There could be someone who is saved and is not visible to us, if this happens, it would only be known to God and it would not contradict the dogma or the message of Fr.Leonard Feeney.

Michael:
because, you say, the Church says there are no exceptions. But never has the Church taught there are no exceptions to visible Church membership when necessity dictates.

Lionel:
Since there are no known exceptions. This is common knowledge. The Church does not have to tell us that we cannot see any one with the baptism of desire etc.

Michael:
When the Church says there are no exceptions to salvation outside the Church, she means no one is exempt from being visibly united to the Church

Lionel:
When and where does the church say there are exceptions or there are no exceptions ? This is common knowledge. The Church does not have to say it.

Michael:
This is why, as you said, “[t]his is compatible with the Catechism of the Catholic Church (846) saying all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church.”

Lionel:
Yes.

Michael:
So if someone is internally united to the Church and is saved extra-sacramentally (outside of visible communion),

Lionel:
And we would not known in personal cases. You and I would not know these cases.

Michael:
this is in fact an exception to the divine necessity as a precept, but not to the divine necessity of means to a final end, which may be fulfilled in re or in voto.

Lionel:
If someone is saved as such it is a fact known only to God and not an exception to anything.

Michael:
In other words, you are NOT “repeating the traditional theology (ecclesiology) of every one needing to be a visible member of the Church for salvation and there are no known exceptions”, you are repeating the errant Feeneyite private interpretation of the dogma that says there is absolutely no salvation outside of visible Church membership;

Lionel:
Yes I am repeating the text of the dogma as it was known for centuries and also by Fr.Leonard Feeney.

Michael:
meaning not only is it NOT “possible” to be saved by baptism of desire, there are no “exceptions”, period.

Lionel:
Meaning that it is possibile to be saved with the baptism of desire and since we do not know any of these cases they are not exceptions and they are irrelevant to the dogma or the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.

Michael:
You then falsely allege that the Catechism, Ad Gentes, the 1949 Holy Office Letter, etc., teach the same dogma as Fr. Feeney,

Lionel:
I have compared the text on this forum . The three quotations state that all need to convert into the Catholic Church and none of them mention any exceptions, known or unknown.



Lionel Andrades

Posts : 260
Reputation : 384
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II is in accord with the sedevacantist position

Post  Lionel Andrades on Tue Jan 22, 2013 11:19 am

Michael:
Your alleged “proof” where you say it is “implied” is no proof at all. What the ITC report actually says is this (your citation):

Lionel:
Michael if you say that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma then you are saying, asserting, indicating, affirming, implying that these cases exist in 2013 and they are known to you and so they are exceptions to everyone in 2013 needing to be visible members of the Catholic Church for salvation.

So if the ITC says that there is no more exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church they are saying, asserting, indicating, affirming, implying that there are known exceptions in 2013 to this traditional teaching.

The text and the conclusions are there on two ITC papers.

Lionel Andrades

Posts : 260
Reputation : 384
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II is in accord with the sedevacantist position

Post  Lionel Andrades on Tue Jan 22, 2013 11:32 am

International Theological Commission
10. Exclusivist ecclesiocentrism—the fruit of a specific theological system or of a mistaken understanding of the phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus—is no longer defended by Catholic theologians after the clear statements of Pius XII and Vatican Council II on the possibility of salvation for those who do not belong visibly to the Church (cf, e.g., LG 16; GS 22).-International Theological Commission, Christianity and the World Religions 1997. (1)

Michael:
Because the “Exclusivist ecclesiocentrism” is no longer defended does not mean that it was once the accepted interpretation of the dogma; it was not, it simply means that the “mistaken exclusivist ecclesiocentrism” that was formally defended by a few theologians, is no longer defend by any theologians.
Lionel:
How can it be defended when it is assumed that there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus?

Michael:
So how do you go from the obvious meaning of the text to the “assumption” that “the baptism of desire etc is an exception to Fr. Leonard Feeney's understanding of the dogma”, when the report rejects Fr. Feeney’s mistaken understanding of the dogma?

Lionel:
The ITC rejects Fr.Leonard Feeney's literal interpretation of the dogma since it assumes that there are known exceptions to the dogma. These known exceptions are the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance as referred to in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and which the ITC presumes is explicit and visible for us.Though the Letter does not state this.

Michael:
Even IF the Cardinal prefect for the CDF accepted as plausible Fr. Feeney’s “exclusivist” understanding of the dogma, if someone is saved apart from visible external membership, this is in fact an “exception” to his exclusivist “dogma”, or the word “exception” has no meaning.

Lionel:
If someone is saved apart from visible external membership and this is a possibility the Cardinal prefect wouldn't know about it !
So how could what he would not know be an exception ?

Michael:
The dogma of Fr. Feeney says there is no salvation outside of visible external (material) membership in the Church, so if some is saved without visible external (material) membership, this is NOT an exception to visible material membership? Of course it is.

Lionel:
If it is not visible how can it be an exception ? Can you know such a case ? Do you know such a case?

Michael:
So when you constantly repeat such things as “In both cases the error is assuming that we can physically see cases of the baptism of desire”, you are falsely assuming that those who accept the Magisterial teachings of the Church on the baptisms of blood and desire (the Universal Church) ALSO accept Fr. Feeney’s “mistaken exclusivist ecclesiocentrism” on "no salvation outside of visible external membership"

Lionel:
When we accept the baptism of desire and baptism of blood we accept it in principle. So it does not contradict Fr.Leonard Feeney . Every one in 2013 still needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church for salvation.( Vatican Council II (AG 7),Catechism of the Catholic Church 846, Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441)

Michael:
(as it is understood by the Church).

Lionel:
( Vatican Council II (AG 7),Catechism of the Catholic Church 846, Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441)

Lionel Andrades

Posts : 260
Reputation : 384
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II is in accord with the sedevacantist position

Post  Lionel Andrades on Tue Jan 22, 2013 11:41 am

Lionel wrote:
The ITC paper contradicts itself. It states:
(A) The Second Vatican Council has reiterated this faith conviction: “Basing itself on Scripture and tradition, it [the Council] teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door.
Then it [the ITC report, citing the 1949 Holy Office Letter] states:

(B) “To gain eternal salvation, it is not always required that a person be incorporated in reality (reapse) as a member of the Church,

B does not contradict A since it is accepted only in principle.

No, B does not contradict A since it is accepted as the correct understanding of the dogma “A”, and then goes on to tell us how "the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door” may be realized in reality, or in desire.

Lionel wrote:
It then says

(C) It is not always necessary that this desire be explicit as it is with catechumens.

C does not contradict A since we do not personally know this catechumen. So if he does not exist in 2013 how can he be an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Yes, we do know this Catechumen, and we know, by the objective manifestation of his faith and desire, that he already belongs to the Church, even if not yet a formal member.

Lionel:
Michael this Catechumen who is saved is known only to God. You and I do not know a single such case.
In principle we accept the possibility of this happening.Personally we do not know any such person.

Michael:
No, we do not “know” with infallible certitude that he will be saved, but only that he is assured of salvation if his dispositions are sincere, just like Baptized adults have the same assurance if they have the proper dispositions (the common denominator being a state of grace).

Lionel:
Michael, personally you and I do not know who is person is. It has to be hypothetical for us. It is known only to God.It is real only for God.

Michael:
He is NOT “an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus”, he is a living example of the dogma, for, provided that his dispositions are sincere, he will be saved IN the Church, even if not as a formal member.

Lionel:
He can be saved but he is unknown to you and me.So he is not an existing exception.

Lionel Andrades

Posts : 260
Reputation : 384
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II is in accord with the sedevacantist position

Post  George Brenner on Tue Jan 22, 2013 2:10 pm

Lionel,

We are either talking past each other or not listening to each other. I firmly believe that Baptism of Desire is NOT an exception to the necessity of Baptism by water. I believe as the Church correctly teaches that Baptism of Desire belongs to mercies of God as understood by the Church. I believe that you have created your own definition. If you want to say and believe in baptism of desire in principle, I accept that from you. Baptism of Desire in my view has NOTHING to do with teaching the faith with full non qualified vigor. There are absolutely no circumstances that I would tell, teach or imply to anyone that they could be saved by Baptism of Desire when it is my responsibility to teach what Jesus has instructed us to do. We must always teach Baptism by water and No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church period. Father Feeney fought against modernism , indifferentism and liberal influence that many in America were having on the Church.

So, Lionel did Father Feeney believe in Baptism of desire at least in principle?

From Father Harrison:
Fr. Feeney’s position eventually became still more rigorous than that for which he was censured by Rome in 1949. From 1952 until his death he no longer held that “baptism of desire” could be sufficient for salvation, even in the case of a catechumen who dies during preparation for sacramental baptism with an explicit desire and intention to join the Roman Catholic Church. As regards “baptism of blood” – the violent death of a catechumen who voluntarily sacrifices his life for love of Christ and the faith during persecution – Feeney and his followers do not exactly deny that this would be sufficient for salvation. Rather, they deny that such a thing has ever happened in fact, or ever could happen. They argue that God’s Providence will infallibly see to it that any catechumen with such heroic faith and charity will always receive the waters of baptism prior to being slain by the persecutor. This of course requires them to explain away all testimonies of catechumens being martyred before baptism as historically unreliable, and in fact false. In the case of Fr. Feeney himself, this post-1952 severity regarding baptism – cf. (a) in our main text above – was held as a personal opinion, which he said he would be prepared to renounce if the Church expressly passed judgment against it. He consistently maintained, however, that the denial of requirement (b) above is heresy.


JMJ,


George
avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II is in accord with the sedevacantist position

Post  Lionel Andrades on Wed Jan 23, 2013 5:24 am

George says:
I firmly believe that Baptism of Desire is NOT an exception to the necessity of Baptism by water. I believe as the Church correctly teaches that Baptism of Desire belongs to mercies of God as understood by the Church...

If you want to say and believe in baptism of desire in principle, I accept that from you. Baptism of Desire in my view has NOTHING to do with teaching the faith...
Lionel:
Agreed,George.

George:
There are absolutely no circumstances that I would tell, teach or imply to anyone that they could be saved by Baptism of Desire when it is my responsibility to teach what Jesus has instructed us to do.

Lionel:
There is confusion here,George.
According to Fr.Leonard Feeney's communities, in principle , a Catechumen with charity,desire, the required grace and the baptism of water can be saved. So a Catechumen could have a genuine desire, perfect charity and God could give him the grace of the baptism of water and he could be saved. So hypothetically there could be a Catechumen saved with the baptism of water and the other conditions.

Regarding baptism of desire:
No Pope, Council, or theologian says that baptism of desire is a sacrament.
Likewise no Pope, Council, or theologian says that baptism of desire incorporates one into the Catholic Church.
Question: Without contradicting the thrice defined Dogma, “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church”, and the infallible teaching of the Council of Trent, how can one define the expression baptism of desire?

Answer: The following definition of baptism of desire can be made which will be totally consistent with the infallible teaching of the Council of Trent and with the thrice defined dogma of “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church”. This definition of baptism of desire goes as follows:

In its proper meaning, this consists of an act of perfect contrition or perfect love [that is Charity, which necessarily implies that one has the True Faith], and the simultaneous desire for baptism. It does not imprint an indelible character on the soul and the obligation to receive Baptism by water remains. (From page 126 of The Catholic Concise Encyclopedia , by Robert Broderick, M.A., copyright 1957, Imprimatur by Francis Cardinal Spellman, Archbishop of New York, August 31, 1956) (Emphasis mine)- Desire, Justification, and Salvation at the Council of Trent, by Br. David Mary, M.I.C.M., Tert. May 02nd, 2005

Lionel Andrades

Posts : 260
Reputation : 384
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II is in accord with the sedevacantist position

Post  Lionel Andrades on Wed Jan 23, 2013 5:37 am

George:
So, Lionel did Father Feeney believe in Baptism of desire at least in principle?

From Father Harrison:
Fr. Feeney’s position eventually became still more rigorous than that for which he was censured by Rome in 1949. From 1952 until his death he no longer held that “baptism of desire” could be sufficient for salvation, even in the case of a catechumen who dies during preparation for sacramental baptism with an explicit desire and intention to join the Roman Catholic Church. As regards “baptism of blood” – the violent death of a catechumen who voluntarily sacrifices his life for love of Christ and the faith during persecution – Feeney and his followers do not exactly deny that this would be sufficient for salvation. Rather, they deny that such a thing has ever happened in fact, or ever could happen. They argue that God’s Providence will infallibly see to it that any catechumen with such heroic faith and charity will always receive the waters of baptism prior to being slain by the persecutor. This of course requires them to explain away all testimonies of catechumens being martyred before baptism as historically unreliable, and in fact false. In the case of Fr. Feeney himself, this post-1952 severity regarding baptism – cf. (a) in our main text above – was held as a personal opinion, which he said he would be prepared to renounce if the Church expressly passed judgment against it. He consistently maintained, however, that the denial of requirement (b) above is heresy.

From Father Harrison:
Fr. Feeney’s position eventually became still more rigorous than that for which he was censured by Rome in 1949.

'for which he was censured by Rome in 1949.?'
How could he be censured by Rome in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 when it was the Archbishop who was in heresy for alleging that that the baptism of desire was known and so an exception to the dogma?

From 1952 until his death he no longer held that “baptism of desire” could be sufficient for salvation,

Is Fr.Harrison referring to the baptism of desire in principle or in fact, in reality.
Either way the baptism of desire is irrelevant to the dogma since we do not know any case in real life.
This was the heresy of the Archbishop and the Jesuits who denied an infallible statement with alleged known cases of the deceased alive on earth and saved with the baptism of water.(Sometimes when I have to keep writing all this I cannot help laughing to myself!)

One could have a personal opinion on the baptism of desire since it does not contradict the de fide component of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Centers then, and now, cannot be in heresy since they affirm the literal interpretation of the dogma, according to the text, and as it was interpreted for centuries in the Catholic Church.

It is those who say that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma, that we can objectively see these cases, who are in heresy for negating the de fide teaching with alleged exceptions on earth, whom they can allegedly see in real life.

Lionel Andrades

Posts : 260
Reputation : 384
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II is in accord with the sedevacantist position

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum