Fr.Leonard Feeney goes undefended.

Fr.Leonard Feeney goes undefended.

What the disobedient Feeney said amounted to this: he insisted that all who did not formally enter the Church would go to hell... Further, all adults who did not formally enter the Church - get their names on a parish register - would also go to hell, even if they never had a chance to hear there was a Church, e.g., those in the western hemisphere during the long centuries before Columbus...

Therefore Feeney consigned literally millions upon millions to hell, even though He gave them no chance...

Later Magisterium texts speak of those who pertain to the Church or are joined to the Church by even an unconscious desire, contained in the will to do what is right. John Paul II spoke of a mysterious grace...

No we merely say that some who are Baptists (or other types) can, if they fill the conditions given above, become substantially, not formally, members of the Catholic Church as individuals, and so can be saved.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/scriptur/feeney.txt

This EWTN report says 'even if they never had a chance to hear there was a Church'. If someone 'never had a chance to hear about the Church' and was saved it would be known only to God. So why mention it ? Are these known exceptions to the dogma and Fr.Leonard Feeney. Is EWTN implying that every one does not have to be a 'card carrying member' since there are known exceptions ?

Then EWTN refers to those who' are joined to the Church by even an unconscious desire, contained in the will to do what is right' and who are saved. So these are known exceptions ? For us to know these cases they must exist. Does the Bishop where EWTN is situated know any such case on earth?

EWTN says 'if they fill the conditions given above, become substantially, not formally, members of the Catholic Church as individuals, and so can be saved' They can be saved but this would be known only to God.These cases are unknown at EWTN so how can they be considered exceptions to the traditional teaching of Fr.Leonard Feeney. They are possibilities but not exceptions.

If the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance, being saved in imperfect communion with the Church etc are explicit for us in 2013 then it is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It means those with the baptism of desire etc do not have to convert into the Catholic Church and these cases are known on earth for them to be exceptions.It would mean every one does not have to be a visible member of the Church for salvation as is commonly held. But these cases are unknown to us. Invisible cases cannot be exceptions.

This is irrational. There should be protests at EWTN over this irrationality.
Also the bishop where EWTN is situated should be contacted.
Mother Angelica held the literal interpretation of outside the Church there is no salvation.

How can EWTN imply there are known cases on earth which are exceptions to every one needing to be a visible member of the Church as was taught for centuries in the Catholic Church.

Does everyone need to be a card carrying member of the Church? Yes - this is the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846, Vatican Council II (AG 7) and the defined dogma Cantate Domino Council of Florence 1441 etc.

And there are no known explicit exceptions as EWTN implies.

Lionel Andrades wrote:
This is irrational. There should be protests at EWTN over this irrationality.
Also the bishop where EWTN is situated should be contacted.
Mother Angelica held the literal interpretation of outside the Church there is no salvation.

Lionel, contacting bishops or EWTN won't make a dent in their ecumenical armour. The majority of bishops couldn't give twopence about the salvation of souls or the glory due God. EWTN thinks it's the Catholic Church and all us peasants its subjects. Best let them get on with the auto destruction of their church and warn others to give them a wide berth.

Lionel wrote:

This EWTN report says 'even if they never had a chance to hear there was a Church'. If someone 'never had a chance to hear about the Church' and was saved it would be known only to God. So why mention it? Are these known exceptions to the dogma and Fr.Leonard Feeney. Is EWTN implying that every one does not have to be a 'card carrying member' since there are known exceptions?

Because there is no salvation outside the Church; that’s why it is mentioned -- for if these same souls are saved, they will be saved IN the Church, if not de jure (in re), then at least de facto (in voto). Don’t you pay attention to what the Church actually teaches?

Lionel wrote:

Then EWTN refers to those who' are joined to the Church by even an unconscious desire, contained in the will to do what is right' and who are saved. So these are known exceptions? For us to know these cases they must exist. Does the Bishop where EWTN is situated know any such case on earth?

They would be exceptions to the necessity of visible membership de jure, but they are not exceptions to being joined to the Church de facto (in voto).

Lionel wrote:

EWTN says 'if they fill the conditions given above, become substantially (de facto), not formally (de jure), members of the Catholic Church as individuals, and so can be saved' They can be saved but this would be known only to God. These cases are unknown at EWTN so how can they be considered exceptions to the traditional teaching of Fr. Leonard Feeney. They are possibilities but not exceptions.

They would no more be exceptions to the dogma as a visible catechumen who is saved by the very same explicit faith, intention and desire to enter the Church; for just like Baptized Catholics, if they have the proper dispositions, they will be saved in re, as the Church assures us.

Lionel wrote:

If the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance, being saved in imperfect communion with the Church etc are explicit for us in 2013 then it is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It means those with the baptism of desire etc do not have to convert into the Catholic Church and these cases are known on earth for them to be exceptions.It would mean every one does not have to be a visible member of the Church for salvation as is commonly held. But these cases are unknown to us. Invisible cases cannot be exceptions.

This is irrational. There should be protests at EWTN over this irrationality.

It “means” no such thing, for no one is exempt from conversion and translation into the Body of Christ. What Lionel means by “to convert” is the necessity, once again, of conversion to the Catholic faith (at least supernatural faith in God as Rewarder to those who fear Him), and visible membership in the Church, which is required of all men as a necessity of means and precept, while recognizing the distinctions made by the Church between intrinsic and extrinsic necessity of means when there are unforeseen barriers to formal entry.

Lionel once again falsely and doggedly insists that the Church understands her own dogma as meaning there is no salvation outside of visible external membership, period.

Lionel wrote:

Also the bishop where EWTN is situated should be contacted.
Mother Angelica held the literal interpretation of outside the Church there is no salvation.

That’s s funny, on both counts. Mother Angelica was a Feeneyite, who knew?

Lionel wrote:

How can EWTN imply there are known cases on earth which are exceptions to every one needing to be a visible member of the Church as was taught for centuries in the Catholic Church.

Again, if you do not understand the Church’s dogma, no wonder you hold to this absurd straw-man - the very epitome of "irrationality".

Lionel wrote:

Does everyone need to be a card carrying member of the Church? Yes - this is the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846, Vatican Council II (AG 7) and the defined dogma Cantate Domino Council of Florence 1441 etc.

Yes, while recognizing the rest of the dogma as the Church understands it. Cantate Domino did not “define” that only “card carrying members of the Church” can be saved, it defined that no one can be saved who is not finally JOINED to the Church before death.

The Bull then addresses the importance and absolute necessity of external membership for salvation for the benefit of those heretics who knowingly left the Church, and those who obstinately refuse to be joined to her. The Bull was NOT addressing the good-faith martyrs or the baptism of desire, not because they do not pertain to the dogma, but because they were not the subject of this particular Bull.

Trent, Session 6. Ch. 4 is just as authoritative as this Bull, and defined quite clearly that the catechumen may be joined to the Church in the grace of justification by the desire for baptism. Furthermore, the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, Lumen Gentium #14, spells out quite clearly that the faith-filled catechumen is joined to the Church (de facto) by that same intention and desire that will save him (if sincere) should he die without the sacrament through no fault of his own – and the Church cannot contradict herself on matters of faith!

Lionel, who is the true arbiter of the Faith and Tradition? Fr. Feeney, columba, or you, perhaps?

Concerning Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire as quoted from Father Cekada:

Pre-Vatican II Theologians Who Teach
Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood.
From dossier with 122 pages of photocopied material.
The accompanying table contains a list of pre-Vatican II
theologians who teach baptism of desire (=desiderii, flaminis, in
voto, etc.) and baptism of blood (=sanguinis, martyrii, etc.), together with a page reference to the photocopied dossier I prepared. Two, St. Alphonsus de Ligouri and St. Robert Bellarmine,
are Doctors of the Church. Many more such theologians can
easily be found. These were merely the works in my private library.
Also given is the theological category (if any) each theologian has assigned to the teaching on baptism of blood and baptism of desire. This “category” in theology (also called a theological “note,” “qualification,” etc.) indicates how close a teaching is to the truths God has revealed and obliges us to believe —
whether it is “theologically certain,” “Catholic doctrine,” de fide
(of the faith), etc,. (Some theologians simply teach the doctrines,
and do not assign categories.)

Application of Pope Pius IX’s Principle
to the Teaching of these Theologians that follow.
1. General Principle (from Pius IX, sect. I: II-III above):
All Catholics are obliged to adhere to a teaching if Catholic
theologians hold it by common consent, or hold it as de fide,
or Catholic doctrine, or theologically certain.
2. Particular Fact (from sects. III, IV above, as documented in
dossier):
But, Catholic theologians do hold the teaching on baptism of
desire and baptism of blood by common consent, or hold it
as de fide, or Catholic doctrine, or theologically certain.
3. Conclusion (1 + 2):
Therefore, all Catholics are obliged to adhere to the
teaching on baptism of desire and baptism of blood.

Theologian Page in Theol. Category Theol. Category
or Canonist Dossier Bapt. of Desire Bapt. of Blood
1. Abarzuza 2 de fide, theol. cert theol. cert.
2. Aertnys 7 de fide teaches
3. Billot 10-20 teaches teaches
4. Cappello 23 teaches certain
5. Coronata 28 de fide teaches
6. Davis 32 teaches teaches
7. Herrmann 35 de fide pertains to faith
8. Hervé 38 theol. cert. theol. cert. at least
9. Hurter 44 teaches teaches
10. Iorio 47 teaches teaches
11. Lennerz 49-59 teaches teaches
12. Ligouri 61-62 de fide teaches
13. McAuliffe 67 cath. doctrine comm. cert. teaching
14. Merkelbach 71 certain certain
15. Noldin 74 teaches teaches
16. Ott 77 fidei proxima fidei proxima
17. Pohle 81 cath. doctrine cert. doctrine
18. Prümmer 89 de fide constant doctrine
19. Regatillo. 91, 96 de fide teaches
20. Sabetti 98 teaches teaches
21. Sola 102 fidei proxima theol. certain
22. Tanquerey 107,111 certain certain
23. Zalba 114 teaches teaches
24. Zubizarreta 118 teaches teaches
25. Bellarmine 120 teaches teaches
Résumé of Theological Categories Bapt. of Desire Bapt. of Blood
Common teaching of the doctrines 25 (all) 25 (all)
Theologically certain, certain 3 8
Catholic doctrine, constant 2 1
fidei proxima, pertains to faith 2 2
de fide (of the faith) 7 0



Conclusions from the Foregoing
about Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood
1. All twenty-five theologians teach baptism of blood and baptism of desire, and none reject the teaching, so both doctrines are held by common consent.
2. Some theologians categorize the doctrines as theologically
certain.
3. Some theologians categorize the doctrines as Catholic doctrine.
4. Some theologians categorize the doctrines as de fide (of the
faith).


Degree of Error and the Gravity of the Sin
if You Reject Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood
Each theological “category” has a corresponding theological
censure attached to it which expresses the degree of error into
which someone has fallen by denying a particular teaching.
Below are the various categories theologians attributed to
baptism of desire and baptism of blood, along with the corresponding censures and a note on the gravity of the sin committed.
Theologians categorize the
teachings on the baptisms
of desire and blood as one
of the following:
YOUR DEGREE
OF ERROR
(the censure) if you deny
the teaching:
GRAVITY OF SIN
against the Faith if you
deny the teaching:
Theologically
certain
Theological
error
Mortal sin
Indirectly against the faith.
Catholic
doctrine
Error in
Catholic doctrine
Mortal
Indirectly against the faith
De fide Heresy Mortal
Directly against the faith.
Section VII
General Conclusion
All Catholics are obliged to adhere to the common teaching
on baptism of blood and baptism of desire.
According to the norms outlined above, the Feeneyite position represents either theological error, error in Catholic doctrine
or heresy.
Those Catholics who adhere to the Feeneyite position on
baptism of desire and baptism of blood commit a mortal sin
against the faith.

Saturday, February 2, 2013
CANON LAWYER COULD ASK JOAN LEWIS AND EWTN IF THE DEAD ARE VISIBLE TO THEM

On Jan.22,2013 I sent the Diocese of Calgary a post from this blog.(1)The bishop of Calgary responded by citing passages from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (2).Bishop Frederick Henry, the bishop of Calgary implied that these citations from the Catechism were exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

I wrote back saying that there could not be exceptions since we do not know anyone saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire in 2013 (3).If these cases were physically visible then it could be said that everyone does not have to convert into the Church in 2013 and there are known exceptions.So the passages in the Catechism which he cited were not exceptions to the dogma.

Now he did not have any reason to say that he was rejecting the dogma but yet he would not affirm it.

Similarly John Lewis, Eternal Word Television Network's Bureau Chief in Rome and who has a column on EWTN, Joans Rome, once sent me many passages from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. She was implying that there were explicit exceptions to the dogma and so every one did not have to be a visible members of the Church for salvation.

Joan Lewis is a Eucharistic Minister and Lector at the Church of Santa Susanna , the American Church in Rome.She is one of the Religious Education teachers at the Church of Santa Suzanna, along with John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter. Fr.Robert Christian OP of the Angelicum University,Rome who denies the dogma on salvation is also a religion teacher at Santa Suzzana.(4)

She will also give the Eucharist at Mass to John Allen.

Could a Canon Lawyer ask if EWTN and Joan Lewis are really Catholic ? Since Joan Lewis' error is also repeated by others on EWTN e.g Patrick Madrid, Peter Vere etc.

1.Is Joan Lewis and EWTN saying they can see the dead walking on the street, these cases are visible to them?

2.How can invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire be an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney?

3.Are not Joan Lewis and EWTN rejecting an ex cathedra dogma on salvation?

4.Are they not also rejecting the dogma on the infallibility of the pope ex catehdra?

5.Why does EWTN not take up the case of the bishop of Calgary who will not affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus?

6.How can the Priestly Fraternity of St.Peter (FSSP) offer Holy Mass in Calgary,Canada, and elsewhere, and not affirm the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus?

7.The present Rector of the Chuch of Santa Susana has in public, in a homily, denied the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Can he still be allowed to offer Holy Mass in English?

8.Joan Lewis will not affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus and she can still be a Eucharistic Minister and teach religion?

9.Why must they be allowed to make the error of the Archbishop of Boston, Richard Cushing and assume that the dead saved are visible to us?

10. Is all this permitted by Canon Law?
-Lionel Andrades

1.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
CALGARY BISHOP DECLARES SSPX AS 'NOT CATHOLICS'
I have been in communication with the Inter Religious Dialogue and Ecumenism representative in the diocese of Calgary,Canada.There is a new Director now.

She said that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

How can they be exceptions when we do not know a single such case in 2013.
She is rejecting the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with alleged exceptions and of course the diocese of Calgary would consider itself Catholic!

According to Ad Gentes 7 all need faith and baptism for salvation.Protestants with whom there are ecumenical meetings in Alberta, Canada do not have Catholic Faith!

For her Vatican Council II (LG 16 on invincible ignorance ) would be a break with Tradition. A break with the dogma on salvation and the Syllabus of Errors. The Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has said that those who interpret the Council as a break with the past are heretical.This would also apply to the bishop of Calgary,Bishop Frederick Henry ?

Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation and the Diocese of Calgary policy on this issue is :No some do not. They are known to us with the baptism of desire, invincible ignorance etc.
-Lionel Andrades

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/01/calgary-archbishop-declares-sspx-as-not.html#links

2.
Dear Lionel
You might find it helpful to re-read the church's teaching as explained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I have attached several of the important texts.
Peace, Bishop Henry

845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son's Church.

The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is "the world reconciled." She is that bark which "in the full sail of the Lord's cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world." According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah's ark, which alone saves from the flood.334 (30, 953, 1219)

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: (161, 1257)

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the 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, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience-those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338 (1260)

VI. The Necessity of Baptism
1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.(1129, 161, 846)

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament. (2473)

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.(1249)

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity. (848)

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism. (1257, 1250)

3.
Dear Bishop F.B Henry,
Praised be Jesus and Our Lady.
The quotations you have cited do not contradict the literal intrerpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nor Ad Gentes 7 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.

845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son's Church.

The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is "the world reconciled." She is that bark which "in the full sail of the Lord's cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world." According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah's ark, which alone saves from the flood.334 (30, 953, 1219)

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: (161, 1257)

(Note : it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body. This does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus since we do not know these cases personally .If they were known personally then we could assume that they are exceptions)
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the 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, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

(There can be non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance and these cases would be known only to God.So we cannot suggest that these cases are exceptions to every one needing to convert into the Church in 2013 for salvation).
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience-those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338 (1260)

VI. The Necessity of Baptism
1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.(1129, 161, 846)

(There could be a non Catholic saved without the Sacrament of baoptism and this would be known only to God.Since we do not know any such case in 2013 this is not an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus).
1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament. (2473)

(Similalry only Jesus can judge who has the baptism of desire who is really a martyr. So this cannot be an exception.)
1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.(1249)

(The baptism of desire is irrelevant to the dogma. It is a possibility but it is not an exception to the dogma)

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity. (848)

(A person can be saved in invincible ignorance. This is a possibility but it cannot be an exception. Otherwise it would be implying that we can see the dead-saved.)
1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism. (1257, 1250)
(We leave children to the mercy of God. We agree here).
In Christ
Lionel Andrades

4.
http://www.santasusanna.org/newResidents/religiousEd.html

EWTN
5817 Old Leeds Rd.
Irondale, Al. 35210
(205) 271- 2900
viewer@ewtn.com
View Joan's videos at : www.youtube.com/joansrome
Write to Joan at:
joansrome@ewtn.com

http://www.ewtn.com/news/blog.asp?blog_id=1

George,

That citation if from Fr.Anthony Cekada.
He assumed that the baptism of desire was explicit and an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.I do not know from where you got this link. He had pulled it down some time back.

Lionel, contacting bishops or EWTN won't make a dent in their ecumenical armour. The majority of bishops couldn't give twopence about the salvation of souls or the glory due God. EWTN thinks it's the Catholic Church and all us peasants its subjects. Best let them get on with the auto destruction of their church and warn others to give them a wide berth

Columba,
One could just phone their office and ask them their opinion and then place their views here.
Life Sites has been successful with this approach.

Lionel,

You seem very enthused about this issue; perhaps you can do some research for me:

During the Middle Ages, Catholic families on the frontiers of Christendom, in conflicts with the Turkish Moors, on some occasions suffered the misfortune of having their young infants and toddler children kidnapped and hauled-off to Islamic lands to be raised in Muslim families as Muslims. The parents of these kiddos naturally began to ask what would be the eternal fate of their children, for having been raised in a false religion amongst infidels. The theologians replied that if these children, having been sacramentally baptized, cooperated with the graces of the One and Triune God, who, after still loved them, that He would provide them with the truths which they needed to believe in order to achieve eternal life.

Perhaps you can find the references for me; I saw these quotes from the scholastic theologians years ago, but I have not been able to track them down since then. Of course, as "anyone whatsoever" (Lateran IV, Canon 1) can baptize, we are faced with many more such situations as the one which troubled the medievals.

Another thing for you to consider is this canon from the 1983 Code of Canon Law:

Can. 901 A priest is free to apply the Mass for anyone, living or dead.

Was this canon in the 1917 Code of Canon Law? If so, where did it come from prior to that? In any case, if a priest can say Mass for anyone (including, aborted children), then the Catholic Church must have some hope for the salvation of every human being, otherwise, what would be the point of allowing priests to say Mass for non-Catholics?

Jehanne,

As I mentioned on another thread these cases are not physical exceptions to Cantate Domino, would you agree?

Jehanne

When the EWTN report says 'even if they never had a chance to hear there was a Church'. If someone 'never had a chance to hear about the Church' and was saved it would be known only to God. We physically cannot see these cases ?

So can these cases be known exceptions to the dogma and Fr.Leonard Feeney?

Is EWTN implying that every one does not have to be a 'card carrying member' since there are physically known exceptions ?

Then EWTN refers to those who' are joined to the Church by even an unconscious desire, contained in the will to do what is right' and who are saved. Physically known exceptions ?

For us to know these cases they must exist physically ? Can the Archbishop, where EWTN is situated know any such case on earth? EWTN says 'if they fill the conditions given above, become substantially, not formally, members of the Catholic Church as individuals, and so can be saved' They can be saved but this would be known only to God.These cases are unknown at EWTN so how can they be considered physical exceptions to the traditional teaching of Fr.Leonard Feeney. They are possibilities but not exceptions would you agree ?

George,
Therefore, all Catholics are obliged to adhere to the
teaching on baptism of desire and baptism of blood.

Yes George, but we are not obliged to adhere to a teaching on the baptism of desire which says that these cases are physically visible to us ?

Lionel Andrades wrote:Jehanne,

As I mentioned on another thread these cases are not physical exceptions to Cantate Domino, would you agree?

I don't think, believe, and/or profess that there are "exceptions", period! Visible or not, de facto or de jure, vincibly or invincibly ignorant, explicit or implicit, in voto or ex voto, baptism in re or in voto, every human being, without exception, must end his/her life in the "bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." This proclaimation from the Council of Florence, an ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church, is ex cathedra, without error, infallible, and irreformable for all time and eternity.

Who is (and is not) in the "bosom and unity of the Catholic Church" at the end of his/her life is for the Righteous Judge to decide, not me. I make no promises to Jews, pagans, infidels, heretics, or schismatics, material or otherwise, as I cannot promise that which I cannot possibly give or deliver. To the individual alone, the Sacraments of the Catholic Church provide assurance, if those sacraments are received with the proper dispositions, matter, form, and minister, and for infants, sacramental Baptism alone. Everyone else, without exception, is "on their own." As Mike would say, "Good Luck with that."

Lionel,

Are you sure that you are not confusing Church teaching on Baptism of Desire as opposed to not teaching the faith by many (pick your own percent) for I have know way of knowing. Any in depth conversation with ANYONE AND EVERYONE that I come into contact with in which we get into the discussion on Salvation (for simplicity sake basically goes like this:) Jesus taught that all need to join the Catholic Church for Salvation and have baptism by Water. When they say that they disagree and tell me that we Catholics way over exagerate our prayers to and love for Blessed Mother, Mary and go on to say that basically all religions are equally pleasing to God etc etc etc ,how can I not think how nearly impossible it would be for someone to be saved as Father Faber writes so magnificiently without the Catholic Church and Sacraments. Let me take it a step further. When they say that they disagree with me, I do go on to tell them in love and charity (and frustration some , well ok most of the time, well probably almost all of the time) that they can NO longer can claim before God that they were not told the truth. Can this individual STILL be seeking God with a sincere heart? I do not know for I am not in the judging business but I can tell you one thing out of love for my faith in this gobbly goog. nice guy, don't offend anyone, we are all in this together world that I am at peace. Those in the Church who are weak or wimps or worse and do not teach the necessity of our faith and baptism by water,need to shape up like Bishop Sample and many other courageous Catholics. Hugs and kisses must be accompanied with truth and specifics. Those in the Church should always and everywhere teach the faith and assume someone is seeking God with a sincere heart. It is our mission to help and teach all so that there 'heart' will be acuraterly sincere and not leave them to the hope of baptism of desire especially when we can be of hands on help and share truth for truth sake.


As Mike explains over and over again correct Church teaching, you need to listen,Lionel. Do not confuse lack of teaching the Faith with sound and correct Church teaching and not with your homemade verions of Church teaching.



JMJ,

George

George
Are you sure that you are not confusing Church teaching on Baptism of Desire as opposed to not teaching the faith by many (pick your own percent) for I have know way of knowing.

Lionel.
We can accept the baptism of desire just like Fr.Anthony Cekada whom you have quoted above.There is a general misconception in the Catholic Church among informed Catholics too.Th baptism of desire is not opposed to the dogma.

The baptism of desire is theology,hypothetical, theoretical something we accept in faith. It is not visible and concrete.So how can theoretical baptism of desire be an exception to everyone needing to be visible members of the Catholic Church for salvation ?

As Jehanne says:
I don't think, believe, and/or profess that there are "exceptions", period! Visible or not, de facto or de jure, vincibly or invincibly ignorant, explicit or implicit, in voto or ex voto, baptism in re or in voto, every human being, without exception, must end his/her life in the "bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." This proclaimation from the Council of Florence, an ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church, is ex cathedra, without error, infallible, and irreformable for all time and eternity.

We can believe in the baptism of desire without considering it an exception.

Jehanne:
Who is (and is not) in the "bosom and unity of the Catholic Church" at the end of his/her life is for the Righteous Judge to decide, not me. I make no promises to Jews, pagans, infidels, heretics, or schismatics, material or otherwise, as I cannot promise that which I cannot possibly give or deliver. To the individual alone, the Sacraments of the Catholic Church provide assurance, if those sacraments are received with the proper dispositions, matter, form, and minister, and for infants, sacramental Baptism alone. Everyone else, without exception, is "on their own." As Mike would say, "Good Luck with that."

Jehanne wrote:

Lionel Andrades wrote:Jehanne,

As I mentioned on another thread these cases are not physical exceptions to Cantate Domino, would you agree?

I don't think, believe, and/or profess that there are "exceptions", period! Visible or not, de facto or de jure, vincibly or invincibly ignorant, explicit or implicit, in voto or ex voto, baptism in re or in voto, every human being, without exception, must end his/her life in the "bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." This proclaimation from the Council of Florence, an ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church, is ex cathedra, without error, infallible, and irreformable for all time and eternity.

Who is (and is not) in the "bosom and unity of the Catholic Church" at the end of his/her life is for the Righteous Judge to decide, not me.

That sounds so, well, triumphantly aloof and dispassionately orthodox; when just underneath the surface there is a not so subtle de facto refusal to acknowledge the critical distinctions to “unity of the Catholic Church” (how one may be “joined” to the Church) taught by Doctors such as Bellarmine and the Second Vatican Council, the latter of which infallibly tells us how the Church understands her own dogma.

For the Church, in all of her Councils and in her magisterial teachings, tells us precisely who can be and who cannot be untied to the Church, so let’s stop with the bloviating theatrics and acknowledge that what she teaches is the TRUTH.

Lionel agrees with you because you scoff at these distinctions that are explicitly taught by the Magisterium, and hold yourself above them, even if they tell us precisely how the Church understands her own dogma.

But that’s you, and even RG (and his heresy) sought comfort in your tough-sounding but meatless ecclesiology that cannot bring itself to acknowledge the truth without attacking the very same truth, and the Church that teaches it, that you say you actually accept.

When RG and Lionel agree with you, you have a coherency problem. You talk the tough sounding Feeneyite talk, but cannot walk the walk.

I agree with the community of Fr.Leonrd Feeney (New Hampshire). They have been explaining the dogma which does not mention any exceptions.Now I think they should also emphasize that the baptism of desire is not an exception to the teaching that everyone needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church for salvation.

They can still hold their position theologically that the baptism of desire must also include the baptism of water.. They could emphasize that the baptism of desire does not contradict every one needing to convert into the Church in 2013 with Catholic faith and the baptism of water.

This is important since supporters of Fr.Leonard Feeney, and the SSPX and sedevacantists assume that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are explicit exceptions to the dogma.

So they assume that the implicit for us salvation,mentioned in Vatican Council II contradicts extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The Council appears modernist.

Lionel,


Please find below one of the many quotes from Father Feeney. This one is from page 21 of Bread of Life. His love , respect and submission to the Pope is repeated in many of his books:

If you do not have a belief in, and submission to, a visible Holy Father and a visible Church, with clear distinquishible marks,you will never go to Heaven.
Our Holy Father and Pope has been given to us by Christ so as to preserve the incarnational values of Redemption until the end of time. He is the only one who will unflinchingly protect jesus jesus in the Holy Eucharist. He is the only one who will preserve Jesus and Mary in Bethlehem. Hei is the only one who indispensably can safeguard the flesh and blood dogmas of Christianity in infallible pronouncement. He only can speak ex Cathedera. And his utterances are given to Rome and the world; urbi et orbi........There is great responsibilty ALWAYS on the listener.

Lionel, you are IN Rome, Lionel. Go ask your question as a student and not the teacher. With prayer hopefully this will work for you. No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church along with Baptism as known and taught by the Church is a protected in our deposit of faith.Believing in truth and refusing to submit to truth are as old as creation itself. Why do you persecute the Church for your own misunderstanding? Just because many in the Church do not teach the faith is NEVER cause to attack that which is protected by the Holy Ghost. Be submissive to the Holy Father.


JMJ,
Your friend

George

George
Lionel, you are IN Rome, Lionel. Go ask your question as a student and not the teacher.

Lionel:
Here is one person among many whom I have asked.Others include an Archbishop
REDEMPTORIST PRIEST SAYS VATICAN COUNCIL II DOES NOT CONTRADICT ITSELF NOR THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUShttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/10/redemptorist-priest-says-vatican.html#links

Lionel:
I have asked so many priests and they say that they do not know personally know of any any case of the baptism of desire and they accept these cases n faith. These cases are not visible to us and so they cannot be exceptions to the traditional teaching that everyone needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church for salvation.

You George, also say that these cases are possibilities and that we cannot meet any such person on the street saved in invincible ignoranc and the baptism of desire. So why cannot you accept that there could be a Muslim known to God only, who could be in an RCIA course and who dies before he receives the baptism of water. If he is saved it is not a visible case for you and me. So it does not contradict Fr.Leonard Feeney.

Since you accept the baptism of desire as a posibility and you know that we cannot meet any one on the streets saved with the baptism of desire why should it be an exception to the dogma when it is not visible to you and me. So cannot a non Catholic be saved in another religion and this would not contradict the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney ?

The two questions that I have been asking you remember are:
1. Do we know in the year 2013 any one saved in invincible ignorance, the baptism of desire, a good conscience, seeds of the word (AG 7), imperfect communion with the Church ?
2. If we do not know any of these cases in 2012 can they be considered exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors?