Latest topics
» Rethink "Feeneyism"?
Thu Jul 13, 2017 4:24 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

» Pope Benedict permitted Fr. Jean Marie Gleize to lead in doctrinal talks since he was a liberal ?
Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:59 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Padre Pio told Fr.Gabriel Amorth," It is Satan who has been introduced into the bosom of the Church and within a very short time will come to rule a false Church" -Bishop Richard Williamson
Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:14 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Mons. Brunero Gherardini misled the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and many traditionalists
Sun Jun 25, 2017 7:18 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Official statement from SSPX awaited : Fr.Gleize and other theologians have got it wrong
Sat Jun 24, 2017 10:10 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Brother Andre Marie MICM too is teaching error : Bishop Sanborn cannot report at the Chancery office
Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:50 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Magsiterial Heresy ?
Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:36 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Magisterium should apologise to the SSPX for the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre
Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:34 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Brother Francis MICM made a mistake on Vatican Council II
Sat Sep 26, 2015 5:14 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Legion of Christ universities in Rome adapt to leftist laws
Fri May 22, 2015 7:53 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» CM, SSPX, MICM deny the Faith to please superiors
Thu May 21, 2015 4:44 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX and Church Militant are using the same liberal theology and are unaware of it
Wed May 20, 2015 9:54 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Michael Voris uses liberal theology and yet critcizes Michael Coren
Tue May 19, 2015 10:10 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Fr.John Zuhlsdorf condones Mass for suicide
Tue May 19, 2015 9:18 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Vatican Council II is traditional or liberal depending on how you interpret the Letter of the Holy Office
Mon May 18, 2015 5:57 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Church Militant unable to answer questions on extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Sun May 17, 2015 5:55 am by Lionel L. Andrades


SSPX should be allowed to use the basilicas in Rome for Mass : extra ecclesiam nulla salus

View previous topic View next topic Go down

SSPX should be allowed to use the basilicas in Rome for Mass : extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Post  Lionel Andrades on Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:56 am

The SSPX have a small chapel and on feast days it is not able to accomodate the many Catholics who come from Mass.The Orthodox Christians are allowed to have their religious services in many Catholic Churches in Rome. Why not the SSPX?

The Orthodox Christians do not recognize the pope. The SSPX does. The Orthodox Christians do not accept Vatican Council II as a break or even as a continuation with tradition. The SSPX in future could accept Vatican Council II as a continuation with Tradition, without the dead man walking theory.

The Catholic Church of St.Clement, near the Colloseum, is shared by the Bulgarian Orthodox Christians.Fr John M. Cunningham O.P is the Prior.

Then there is the Catholic Church behind the Basilica of St.John Lateran which is used every Sunday morning by an Orthodox Community for their religious services.They have a side entrance and large areas are available for them.

I have not received the Eucharist at Mass offered by the SSPX priests. I reject the SSPX's Vatican Council II.

The SSPX accepts Vatican Council II as an historical event but interprets it according to the progressives with the visible-dead theory.I accept Vatican Council II without the dead man walking theory and so the Council for me is not modernist.

I also reject the Vatican Council II of the Paulist Fathers at the Church of Santa Suzanna Rome, the Pallotine Fathers at the Church San Silvestro, Rome and the Franciscan Conventuals.It is the same Vatican Council II as the SSPX.

These communities hold a heretical version of Vatican Council II and are allowed to offer Holy Mass in the Churches of Rome. This is the Vatican Council II of the Priestly Fraternity of St.Peter (FSSP) who offer the Tridentine Rite Mass.

So when the SSPX and all these communities have the same understanding of Vatican Council II, the SSPX too should be allowed to use the facilities of churches in Romes to offer Mass on feast days.

The real issue is extra ecclesiam nulla salus. These communities along with the SSPX assume that the baptism of desire etc are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. No Church document claims that these cases are explicit or that they contradict the dogma. One has to assume it and assume it wrongly.

This is assuming that the deceased saved in invincible ignorance walk the streets of the city and they are living exceptions to the dogma.

If Ecclesia Dei and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would clarify this issue it would be easier for the SSPX to see that Vatican Council II does not contradict the Church's traditional teaching on other religions.

If the SSPX is not in full communion with Rome neither are the Pentecostals and other Christians communities with whom there are joint prayer services.

When the last Synod of the Eucharist was held the Lutherans were invited but not the SSPX. The SSPX has more in common with the Church, on the Eucharist, than the Lutherans!

The 'enemies of the church' like the ADL call the SSPX a'sect'.The ecumenical spirit of the modernist then should not exclude the SSPX and they could be allowed to use the churches in Rome for Holy Mass.

Lionel Andrades

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

Back to top Go down

Re: SSPX should be allowed to use the basilicas in Rome for Mass : extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Post  MRyan on Sun Feb 03, 2013 5:24 pm

Lionel Andrades wrote:
The SSPX have a small chapel and on feast days it is not able to accomodate the many Catholics who come from Mass.The Orthodox Christians are allowed to have their religious services in many Catholic Churches in Rome. Why not the SSPX?
The SSPX schism is only a few years old - with the excommunications having been only recently lifted. Much more is expected of those who claim to be in union with Peter, but exist in a de facto state of rebellion. If you don't know the difference, I can't help you.

Lionel Andrades wrote:The Orthodox Christians do not recognize the pope. The SSPX does.
Precisely. Then why do the SSPX refuse his universal Primacy and jurisdiction by establishing independent chapels outside of his jurisdiction and ordaining priests against his explicit will?

Lionel Andrades wrote:
The Catholic Church of St.Clement, near the Colloseum, is shared by the Bulgarian Orthodox Christians.Fr John M. Cunningham O.P is the Prior.

Then there is the Catholic Church behind the Basilica of St.John Lateran which is used every Sunday morning by an Orthodox Community for their religious services.They have a side entrance and large areas are available for them.

I have not received the Eucharist at Mass offered by the SSPX priests. I reject the SSPX's Vatican Council II.
The SSPX has a VCII? Since when? I thought VCII belonged to the Catholic Church?

Actually, the SSPX understands the dogma as the Church understands it "as it is written", even if they falsely accuse the Church of suggesting that non-Catholic churches can act as independent means of salvation.

Lionel Andrades wrote:
The SSPX accepts Vatican Council II as an historical event but interprets it according to the progressives with the visible-dead theory. I accept Vatican Council II without the dead man walking theory and so the Council for me is not modernist.
The "visible-dead-man-walking theory"; so pathetic its laughable.

Lionel Andrades wrote:I also reject the Vatican Council II of the Paulist Fathers at the Church of Santa Suzanna Rome, the Pallotine Fathers at the Church San Silvestro, Rome and the Franciscan Conventuals.It is the same Vatican Council II as the SSPX.

These communities hold a heretical version of Vatican Council II and are allowed to offer Holy Mass in the Churches of Rome. This is the Vatican Council II of the Priestly Fraternity of St.Peter (FSSP) who offer the Tridentine Rite Mass.
Rubbish; these communities simply do not hold the dogma in the discredited exclusivist interpretation of Fr. Feeney, and neither does the Church, so your pick-and-choose acceptance of certain conciliar passages while rendering others (even within the same paragraph) as teaching "salvation by other means" OUTSIDE OF VISIBLE COMMUNION, and thus as "non-exceptions" to NO SALVATION OUTSIDE OF VISIBLE COMMUNION is a complete joke.

Do you think we are stupid? Or just your run-of-the-mill heretics for seeing "visible dead-men-walking"? Oh gosh that's funny.

Lionel Andrades wrote:So when the SSPX and all these communities have the same [heretical] understanding of Vatican Council II, the SSPX too should be allowed to use the facilities of churches in Romes to offer Mass on feast days.
Why? You wouldn't attend their Masses anyway. If they need more space, let them petition Rome.

Lionel Andrades wrote:
The real issue is extra ecclesiam nulla salus. These communities along with the SSPX assume that the baptism of desire etc are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. No Church document claims that these cases are explicit or that they contradict the dogma. One has to assume it and assume it wrongly.

This is assuming that the deceased saved in invincible ignorance walk the streets of the city and they are living exceptions to the dogma.
The dead rise again, just like the saints who walked the streets of Jerusalem to announce the Good News, and; oh yeah, to find someone to Baptize them in the not-yet promulgated sacrament of Baptism!
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2257
Reputation : 2429
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: SSPX should be allowed to use the basilicas in Rome for Mass : extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Post  George Brenner on Sun Feb 03, 2013 9:18 pm

Lionel,

Just a little more food for thought....

"Catechumen," in the early Church, was the name applied to one who had not yet been initiated into the sacred mysteries, but was undergoing a course of preparation for that purpose.

My mother in law, wife and son in law all converted to the Catholic Church and all were baptized by water in other religions. What if one of them had died before they had been formally initiated into the Catholic Faith. You need to pray and rethink your position. Come to think of it most if not all Catechumen's that I am aware of were Baptized with water before they converted to Catholicism.

JMJ,

George


avatar
George Brenner

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

Back to top Go down

Re: SSPX should be allowed to use the basilicas in Rome for Mass : extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Post  Lionel Andrades on Mon Feb 04, 2013 10:04 am

Lionel Andrades wrote:

The SSPX have a small chapel and on feast days it is not able to accomodate the many Catholics who come from Mass.The Orthodox Christians are allowed to have their religious services in many Catholic Churches in Rome. Why not the SSPX?

Michael:
The SSPX schism is only a few years old

Lionel:
It's true that the SSPX are in error over the interpretation of Vatican Council II but then you also are making the same error.Hopfully it is innocent and unintentional as it is for some on this forum.

Archbishop Gerhard Muller has said that those who interpret the Council as a break with the past are in heresy.Traditionalists and progressives.

Michael you interpret extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II as a break with the past. Similar to the SSPX.

For you the dogma ' includes 'those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire . This error of the Archbishop of Boston was not there before the 1940's.This is a break with three defined dogmas.

Then since invincible ignorance etc are exceptions for you, Vatican Council II(LG 16 etc) is also a break with Cantate Domino and the dogma as it was known traditionally.

Mystici Corporis of Pope Pius XII mentions the possibility of those being saved with implicit desire, for you these cases are explicit and an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus even though Mystici Corporis does not say that they are explicit or are exceptions.

This is a non traditional, irrational and heretical (according to the CDF Prefect) interpretation of magisterial documents.This is the hermeneutic of rupture.

And of course CCC 1257 would contradict itself

In any Church.-document if you use a false premise('implicit desire is visible', 'the dead are visible' etc) it emerges as modernist.


Lionel Andrades

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

Back to top Go down

Re: SSPX should be allowed to use the basilicas in Rome for Mass : extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Post  Lionel Andrades on Mon Feb 04, 2013 10:58 am

Michael:
The SSPX has a VCII? Since when? I thought VCII belonged to the Catholic Church?

Lionel:
Progressivists interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise of 'implicit desire being visible' or 'the dead are visible' and then assume that they accept Vatican Council II.

For example the Paulist Fathers say they accept Vatican Council but what they mean by Vatican Council II is a Council in which Lumen Gentium 16 says those who are saved in invincible ignorance are visible to us and so they are exceptions to tradition.This is Vatican Council II for them.

All salvation is visible only to God. There is no physically visible case for us.We cannot see any one saved physically in invincible ignorance.So if there is no physically visible case for us what kind of Vatican Council II do the Paulist Fathers and the other progressivists claim they accept.

And if the Society of St.Pius X say they reject Vatican Council II are they referring to the version which uses the false premise?

If there was no false premise then would the SSPX be able to accept Vatican Council II and then would the Paulist Fathers and others reject Vatican Council II.

Archbishop Gerhard Muller has said that those progressivists and traditionalists who interpret Vatican Council II as a break with the past are heretical.

Any Church document which uses a false premise will emerge modernist and heretical.

The Paulist Fathers interpret extra ecclesiam nulla salus as a break with the past.They assume that cases of implicit desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are explicitly known to us and so they contradict Fr.Leonard Feeney. This was the heretical interpretation of the Archbishop of Boston.Then for the Paulist Fathers Mystici Corporis would be abreak with the past. Pope Pius XII mentions that there could be those saved with implicit desire. The Paulist Faithers use the false premise of implicit desire being explicit.So they conclude that Mystici Corporis contradicts extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Since for the Paulist Fathers there is no implicit baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance CCC 1257 would contradict itself. It would be saying 'God is not limited to the Sacraments' and at the same time saying 'the Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water.' If God is not limited to the Sacraments would be considered implicit for us there would be no difficulty with the Catechism for the Paulist Fathers.

Then there is Vatican Council II itself which is a contradiction since they use the false premise. AG 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation. For the Paulists this is contradicted by LG 16 which says a person can be saved in invincible ignorance. Remember being saved in invincible ignorance is explicit for them.So LG 16 contradicts AG 7 and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is what they mean when they say they accept Vatican Council II and the SSPX does not accept the Council.

So when the SSPX says its rejects Vatican Council II they refer to an interpretation.And when those in the 'Church' say they accept Vatican Council II it is also the same interpretation.

Lionel Andrades

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

Back to top Go down

Re: SSPX should be allowed to use the basilicas in Rome for Mass : extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Post  MRyan on Mon Feb 04, 2013 1:39 pm

Lionel wrote:

It's true that the SSPX are in error over the interpretation of Vatican Council II but then you also are making the same error. Hopfully it is innocent and unintentional as it is for some on this forum.
There is no error on my part, and I can assure you that my understanding of the dogma is deliberate, intentional and secure.

I reject your understanding that says the Church understands her own dogma as saying that no one can be saved who is not a formal visible member of the Church.

The 1949 Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office addressed:

“the unfortunate controversy [that] arose from the fact that the axiom, ‘outside the Church there is no salvation,’” which “was not correctly understood and weighed … by certain associates of ‘St. Benedict Center’... Accordingly, the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinals of this Supreme Congregation, in a plenary session held on Wednesday, July 27, 1949, decreed, and the august Pontiff in an audience on the following Thursday, July 28, 1949, deigned to give his approval, that the following explanations pertinent to the doctrine ... be given:"
You know what it says, and it does in fact present the Church's understanding of the dogma "understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it".

To wit:

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.
Continuing:

Lionel wrote:

Archbishop Gerhard Muller has said that those who interpret the Council as a break with the past are in heresy. Traditionalists and progressives.
That is correct, and those who say that the understanding of the dogma as it is presented by the Sacred Congregation (1949) and by the Church is a “break with the past”, meaning, a break with the “true” doctrine of Fr. Feeney’s private interpretation, are the ones in error.

Lionel wrote:

Michael you interpret extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II as a break with the past. Similar to the SSPX.
Nonsense. Our Lord and His Church have bound salvation to the Church, and to the Church alone, but not to visible external membership alone.

Lionel wrote:

For you the dogma ' includes 'those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. This error of the Archbishop of Boston was not there before the 1940's. This is a break with three defined dogmas.
No one is saved in invincible ignorance or by the baptism of blood and desire without supernatural faith and without being joined to the Church at least in desire (in the bond of charity). This is not a “break with the past” (the "three defined dogmas"); it is how the Church has always understood this same dogma, as the Church declares.

Lionel wrote:

Then since invincible ignorance etc are exceptions for you, Vatican Council II (LG 16 etc) is also a break with Cantate Domino and the dogma as it was known traditionally.
As I’ve explained numerous times, though it appears to have gone right over your head, anyone saved while being invincibly ignorant of certain Catholic truths, or saved by the baptisms of blood or desire (extra-sacramental regeneration and/or without external membership) is saved IN the Church, so there are no exceptions to “there is no salvation outside the Church”, but only to the need for all men to be visibly incorporated to the Church (extrinsic necessity of means, and necessity of precept).

The 1949 Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, Lumen Gentium, Redemptoris missio and the CCC make this quite clear.

And as far as the alleged “break with Cantate Domino”, you simply ignore my previous response that corrects this egregious error on your part, and you go on as if you have tradition and the authority of the Magisterium on your side, when nothing can be further from the truth. Like some Feeneyites and like columba, you are guilty of private interpretation, and refuse to be moderated by the Church.

Lionel wrote:

Mystici Corporis of Pope Pius XII mentions the possibility of those being saved with implicit desire, for you these cases are explicit and an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus even though Mystici Corporis does not say that they are explicit or are exceptions.
And if the possibility of extra-sacramental and extra-visible incorporation (that lead to salvation) exists, salvation is possible only by, through and IN the Church. That we cannot see internal unity is irrelevant. We can see, however, the external manifestations of a catechumen's explicit faith, desire and intention; the very intention of which the Church says joins this same catechumens to the Church de facto.

Lionel wrote:

This is a non traditional, irrational and heretical (according to the CDF Prefect) interpretation of magisterial documents. This is the hermeneutic of rupture.
You are simply twisting the obvious sense and meaning of the words of the CDF Prefect, as if he is actually advocating the censored error of Fr. Feeney, for you are blinded by your own false understanding and private interpretation.

The fact that you cannot address, and you ignore my specific arguments, is most revealing; as revealing as your egregious error that says “salvation outside of visible external membership” is NOT an exception to “no salvation outside of visible external membership”.

Lionel wrote:

And of course CCC 1257 would contradict itself
CCC 1257, 1258, 1259 and 1260 must be read as ONE seamless whole (1261 addresses the hope of salvation of unbaptized infants) under the dogma - the “Necessity of Baptism”. There can be, and there is not, any contradiction. That you divorce 1257 from what immediately follows on the baptisms of blood and desire proves only that you are the one who is guilty of the “hermeneutic of rupture”, and fall under the very condemnation of the CDF Prefect you have the temerity to suggest is addressed to Catholics who do NOT hold to Fr. Feeney’s discredited and censored position.

Lionel wrote:

In any Church.-document if you use a false premise ('implicit desire is visible', 'the dead are visible' etc) it emerges as modernist.
What happened to the “false premise” of "explicit desire is visible” in the faith, charity and intention of the catechumens; the very intention of which (as the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, LG 14, teaches) places the catechumen IN the Church?

What’s the matter Lionel, can’t you be consistent, or is this a retreat?

How can the Church consider the faith-filled catechumen to be already joined to Church de facto, and not yet de jure, while also teaching that this very same faith, charity and desire (intention), if sincere, will assure the catechumen of salvation should some unforeseen obstacle prevent formal incorporation from being visibly realized?

Is the visible faith-filled catechumen, who is already considered to be joined to the Church (de facto), a “visible dead man walking” when the Church has not given any definitive assurance of his (or any Baptized adult's) salvation?

Checkmate, Lionel, your false premise to your false theory has been exposed for the "hermeneutic of rupture" that it is.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2257
Reputation : 2429
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: SSPX should be allowed to use the basilicas in Rome for Mass : extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Post  Lionel Andrades on Tue Feb 05, 2013 6:21 am

Michael:

There is no error on my part, and I can assure you that my understanding of the dogma is deliberate, intentional and secure.

I reject your understanding that says the Church understands her own dogma as saying that no one can be saved who is not a formal visible member of the Church.

Lionel:
The dogma says every one needs to be a formal member of the Church for salvation. This does not exclude some one being saved who is not a visible member to us but is known to God only.

So in 2013 every one needs to be a formal, visible member of the Church for salvation. There are no exceptions.

If someone is saved who is not a formal member, it would not be an exception in 2013 since we wouldn't know about this case.

Here is what the Church says .Please not the baptism of desire etc can be possibilities of salvation but never exceptions.

Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino (1441): "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the "eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."-, Wikipedia, extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church.-Lumen Gentium 14

Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door.-Ad Gentes 7


Above all else, it must be firmly believed 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 (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”. This doctrine must not be set against the universal salvific will of God (cf. 1 Tim 2:4); “it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation”.- Dominus Iesus 20

So if you assume that the baptism of desire etc is explicit and an exception to the above texts then it is an irrational.

Lionel Andrades

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

Back to top Go down

Re: SSPX should be allowed to use the basilicas in Rome for Mass : extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Post  Lionel Andrades on Tue Feb 05, 2013 6:36 am

Michael:

The 1949 Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office addressed:

“the unfortunate controversy [that] arose from the fact that the axiom, ‘outside the Church there is no salvation,’” which “was not correctly understood and weighed … by certain associates of ‘St. Benedict Center’... Accordingly, the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinals of this Supreme Congregation, in a plenary session held on Wednesday, July 27, 1949, decreed, and the august Pontiff in an audience on the following Thursday, July 28, 1949, deigned to give his approval, that the following explanations pertinent to the doctrine ... be given:"
You know what it says, and it does in fact present the Church's understanding of the dogma "understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it".

Lionel:
Agreed

Michael:
To wit:

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.

Lionel:
Agreed.
The passage above does not state that these cases are explicit in the present times and neither does it state that these cases are an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

You have assumed that these cases are explicit and visible to us and so are an exception to the dogma.

Assuming this was true, it would mean you are able to see the dead saved with the baptism of desire/implicit desire. This would be irrational.

Michael
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.

Lionel:
Agreed.
A person can be saved with implicit desire etc in a manner known only to God and we would not know of these cases and so it does not contradict the dogma.
The passage you have quoted here still does not state that these cases are visible to us and so an exception to the dogma.
So you do not have any magisterial text to support your error in assuming that these cases are visible and so an exception to Cantate Domino.

Michael:
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).

Lionel:
I repeat. The same as above.The text does not state that these cases are explicit and visible to us. Invisible to us baptism of desire cannot be an exception.

Michael:
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 is the rest of the passage.

From these declarations which pertain to doctrine, certain conclusions follow which regard discipline and conduct, and which cannot be unknown to those who vigorously defend the necessity by which all are bound' of belonging to the true Church and of submitting to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and of the Bishops "whom the Holy Ghost has placed . . . to rule the Church" (Acts 20:28).

Hence, one cannot understand how the St. Benedict Center can consistently claim to be a Catholic school and wish to be accounted such, and yet not conform to the prescriptions of canons 1381 and 1382 of the Code of Canon Law, and continue to exist as a source of discord and rebellion against ecclesiastical authority and as a source of the disturbance of many consciences.

Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a "Defender of the Faith," and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities, and has not even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons because of his serious violations of his duties as a religious, a priest, and an ordinary member of the Church.

Finally, it is in no wise to be tolerated that certain Catholics shall claim for themselves the right to publish a periodical, for the purpose of spreading theological doctrines, without the permission of competent Church authority, called the "<imprimatur,>" which is prescribed by the sacred canons.

Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after "Rome has spoken" they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church "only by an unconscious desire." Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.

The above passage refers to the disobedience of Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center to the Archbishop of Boston.

Assuming it was meant that the baptism of desire etc is an exception to the dogma as you seem to imply, then it would be a factual error on the part of this cardinal who issued the Letter. Since the dead saved are not physically visible to us and so how can they be exceptions to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.

Lionel Andrades

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

Back to top Go down

Re: SSPX should be allowed to use the basilicas in Rome for Mass : extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Post  Lionel Andrades on Tue Feb 05, 2013 6:43 am

Michael:
Continuing:
Lionel wrote:
Archbishop Gerhard Muller has said that those who interpret the Council as a break with the past are in heresy. Traditionalists and progressives.

Michael:
That is correct, and those who say that the understanding of the dogma as it is presented by the Sacred Congregation (1949) and by the Church is a “break with the past”, meaning, a break with the “true” doctrine of Fr. Feeney’s private interpretation, are the ones in error.

Lionel:
The text of the Letter refers to the disobedience of Fr.Leonard Feeney. The Letter does not state that the baptism of desire etc is explicit and so an exception to the dogma. One has to assume it does. The text does not say it.

Assuming it did say all that , as you imply, then it was a break with the past. It was also irrationally implying that the dead are visible and so are physical exceptions on earth to the traditional understanding of the dogma.

Fr.Leonard Feeney's 'private interpretation' is in agreement with magisterial texts I have quoted here on this thread.

Lionel Andrades

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

Back to top Go down

Re: SSPX should be allowed to use the basilicas in Rome for Mass : extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Post  Lionel Andrades on Tue Feb 05, 2013 6:49 am

Michael:
Lionel wrote:
Michael you interpret extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II as a break with the past. Similar to the SSPX.
Nonsense. Our Lord and His Church have bound salvation to the Church, and to the Church alone, but not to visible external membership alone.

Lionel:
Yes Our Lord and His Church have bound salvation to the Church and to the Church alone and this does not contradict the need for every to be a visible member of the Church for salvation.

If those who are saved by Jesus and the Church (baptism of desire etc) were physically visible in 2013 then they would be exceptions to every one needing to enter the Church with the baptism of water and Catholic Faith.

So Yes Our Lord has bound salvation to the Church alone which teaches every one needs to be a visble member in the present times for salvation.

CCC 846 does not contradict itself when it says all need to enter the Church as through a door and all need faith and baptism for salvation and at the same times says all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church.



Lionel Andrades

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

Back to top Go down

Re: SSPX should be allowed to use the basilicas in Rome for Mass : extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Post  Lionel Andrades on Tue Feb 05, 2013 6:55 am

Michael
Lionel wrote:
For you the dogma ' includes 'those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. This error of the Archbishop of Boston was not there before the 1940's. This is a break with three defined dogmas.

Michael:
No one is saved in invincible ignorance or by the baptism of blood and desire without supernatural faith and without being joined to the Church at least in desire (in the bond of charity). This is not a “break with the past” (the "three defined dogmas");

Lionel:
In itself it is not a break with the past. We accept this as a possibility.Baptism of desire is not a problem but when it is assumed to be physically visible to us then the problem emerges.

If the baptism of desire is an exception to the three defined dogma then it has to be a break with the past.

Michael:
it is how the Church has always understood this same dogma, as the Church declares.

Lionel:
No Church text says that the baptism of desire is explicit or physically visible to us.
This is the interpretation of the secular media and the liberals and unfortunately of the traditionalists too like the SSPX.


Lionel Andrades

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

Back to top Go down

Re: SSPX should be allowed to use the basilicas in Rome for Mass : extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Post  Lionel Andrades on Tue Feb 05, 2013 9:25 am

Michael:
As I’ve explained numerous times, though it appears to have gone right over your head, anyone saved while being invincibly ignorant of certain Catholic truths, or saved by the baptisms of blood or desire (extra-sacramental regeneration and/or without external membership) is saved IN the Church, so there are no exceptions to “there is no salvation outside the Church”, but only to the need for all men to be visibly incorporated to the Church (extrinsic necessity of means, and necessity of precept).

Lionel:
There are exceptions to '... only to the need for all men to be visibly incorporated to the Church '...

Michael there are physical exceptions known to you ? So every one does not have to be visibly incorporated.

'anyone saved while being invincibly ignorant of certain Catholic truths, or saved by the baptisms of blood or desire (extra-sacramental regeneration and/or without external membership) is saved IN the Church' .Yes it is possible. We agree here. The baptism of desire is never a problem in itself.However are you saying still that these cases are visible to us? Salvation in Heaven is visible to us physically for it to be an exception to Cantate Domino etc?

Lionel Andrades

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

Back to top Go down

Re: SSPX should be allowed to use the basilicas in Rome for Mass : extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Post  Lionel Andrades on Tue Feb 05, 2013 9:34 am

Mystici Corporis of Pope Pius XII mentions the possibility of those being saved with implicit desire, for you these cases are explicit and an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus even though Mystici Corporis does not say that they are explicit or are exceptions.

Lionel:
So you do agree that Mystici Corporis does not state that implicit desire is explicit and so an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?

Michael
And if the possibility of extra-sacramental and extra-visible incorporation (that lead to salvation) exists, salvation is possible only by, through and IN the Church.
Lionel:
Yes and as mentioned earlier 'extra-sacramental and extra-visible incorporation (that lead to salvation)' is not physically visible and no magisterial text makes this irrational claim

Michael:
That we cannot see internal unity is irrelevant. We can see, however, the external manifestations of a catechumen's explicit faith, desire and intention; the very intention of which the Church says joins this same catechumens to the Church de facto.
Lionel:
We accept this in faith.Personally we can never know such a catechumen. Since salvation is not physically visible to us.


Lionel Andrades

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

Back to top Go down

Re: SSPX should be allowed to use the basilicas in Rome for Mass : extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Post  MRyan on Tue Feb 05, 2013 8:44 pm

Lionel Andrades wrote:
Michael:

There is no error on my part, and I can assure you that my understanding of the dogma is deliberate, intentional and secure.

I reject your understanding that says the Church understands her own dogma as saying that no one can be saved who is not a formal visible member of the Church.
The dogma says every one needs to be a formal member of the Church for salvation.
Where does the dogma say "every one needs to be a formal member of the Church for salvation"?

It says no such thing, at least not as you interpret it. It actually says "It (the council) firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives;"

The Church also infallibly teaches that one may be be "joined to the Catholic Church" by "being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery"; and that "without having received Baptism ... This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament." (CCC 1258, 1260)

Lionel Andrades wrote:
This does not exclude some one being saved who is not a visible member to us but is known to God only.
If it does not exclude someone from being saved who is not a visible member of the Church, then this is an exception to the dogma of no salvation outside of visible membership.

Elementary; the logic is unassailable.

Lionel Andrades wrote:
So in 2013 every one needs to be a formal, visible member of the Church for salvation. There are no exceptions.
You just said there are exceptions when you said the dogma "does not exclude some one being saved who is not a visible member" of the Church.

If the dogma does not exclude someone from being saved outside of visible membership, then this is an exception to the dogma of no salvation outside of visible membership.

Elementary; the logic is unassailable.

Lionel Andrades wrote:
If someone is saved who is not a formal member, it would not be an exception in 2013 since we wouldn't know about this case.
Nowhere does the dogma say that we must know about the case of someone being saved, for the simple fact is that we do not know the case of any adult who is saved in 2013 with or without external incorporation.

All we know is that those who are saved are saved by being in a state of grace; meaning, regenerated and united to Christ and to His Body, the Church, in re, or at least in voto.

So when you say, "If someone is saved who is not a formal member, it would not be an exception in 2013 since we wouldn't know about this case" you are being completely irrational, for you cannot point to a single case in 2013 of an adult being saved as a visible member of the Church.

Lionel wrote:

Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church.-Lumen Gentium 14
Correct, and in referencing the 1949 Holy Office Letter, which, in taking exception to Fr. Feeney's exclusivist interpretation, and with the approval of Pope Pius XII, explained how the dogma is to be "correctly understood"; Lumen Gentium 16 says:

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.(19*) [19* Cfr. Epist. S.S.C.S. Officii ad Archiep. Boston.: Denz. 3869-72.]
Lionel wrote:

Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door.-Ad Gentes 7
Correct, and, placing these words into context, Ad Gentes immediately follows with this explanation of the dogma:

Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."(17) Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6), yet a necessity lies upon the Church (1 Cor. 9:16), and at the same time a sacred duty, to preach the Gospel. And hence missionary activity today as always retains its power and necessity.
Lionel wrote:

Above all else, it must be firmly believed 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 (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”. This doctrine must not be set against the universal salvific will of God (cf. 1 Tim 2:4); “it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation”.- Dominus Iesus 20
Thank you for proving my point, "This doctrine must not be set against the universal salvific will of God (cf. 1 Tim 2:4); it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation”.

The two truths must be kept TOGETHER as one dogma, not as two doctrines having nothing to do one to the other. There is ONE dogma of no salvation outside the Church, understood as the Church understands it; and she understands that we must keep these truths together by recognizing that no one can be saved who is not finally joined to the Church in reality (in re), or at least in desire (in voto).

In other words, that is precisely what you have done; you have “set” the doctrine of the necessity of external incorporation “against the universal salvific will of God” that allows for internal incorporation, for you do NOT keep “these two truths together”, you keep them apart, as distinct and separate doctrines, only one of which, you say, represents the true dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

Lionel Andrades wrote:
So if you assume that the baptism of desire etc is explicit and an exception to the above texts then it is an irrational.
I do NOT assume that the baptism of desire etc is … an exception to the above texts, I assume it is an exception only to the extrinsic necessity of visible membership, but it is NOT an exception to no one can be saved “unless before death they are joined with Her” in re, or in voto, as the Church teaches and understands her own dogma.

The faith-filled visible catechumen is joined to the Church de facto, and the fact that we cannot see his salvation is as relevant as the fact that we cannot see the de facto salvation of any baptized adult - period.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2257
Reputation : 2429
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: SSPX should be allowed to use the basilicas in Rome for Mass : extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Post  Lionel Andrades on Wed Feb 06, 2013 7:29 am

Michael:
There is no error on my part, and I can assure you that my understanding of the dogma is deliberate, intentional and secure.

Lionel
I reject your understanding that says the Church understands her own dogma as saying that no one can be saved who is not a formal visible member of the Church.
The dogma says every one needs to be a formal member of the Church for salvation.

Michael:
Where does the dogma say "every one needs to be a formal member of the Church for salvation"?

Lionel:
Here it is.
Also see other magisterial texts cited here.

Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino (1441): "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the "eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."-Wikipedia, extra ecclesiam nulla salus

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
Catechism of the Catholic Church 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

Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church.-Lumen Gentium 14

Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door.-Ad Gentes 7


4.


Above all else, it must be firmly believed 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 (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”. This doctrine must not be set against the universal salvific will of God (cf. 1 Tim 2:4); “it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation”.- Dominus Iesus 20




Last edited by Lionel Andrades on Wed Feb 06, 2013 7:31 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Matter is not stable and cannot be edited.)

Lionel Andrades

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

Back to top Go down

Re: SSPX should be allowed to use the basilicas in Rome for Mass : extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Post  George Brenner on Wed Feb 06, 2013 9:23 am

Lionel said:
The dogma says every one needs to be a formal member of the Church for salvation
Lionel, out of kindness and charity rather than using any stronger language, you are wrong and going AGAINST Church teaching.


Lionel quoted:




Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino (1441): "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the "eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."-Wikipedia, extra ecclesiam nulla salus


Lionel, pray with a clear and humble mind on WHY, Pope Eugene IV used the words, REMAINING and REMAIN in the Catholic Church. If you are of humble mind at some point being a good Catholic means being subject to Church teaching and not your private intrepretation.


Lionel, now find below another reference of your own that should help you:

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

Pray on the word KNOWING that you may understand it as the Church understands it.

JMJ,

George














avatar
George Brenner

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

Back to top Go down

Re: SSPX should be allowed to use the basilicas in Rome for Mass : extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Post  Lionel Andrades on Wed Feb 06, 2013 10:52 am

George,

We are back to the problem of assuming that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are visible to us.

Those who know and do not enter the church cannot be saved (LG 14 etc).
We must not assume here that we know those who do not know .
Those who do not know and who are saved are unknown to us. They are known only to God.So again they are possibilities for salvation they are not 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.

The above passage from the Catechism and Vatican Council II affirms Cantate Domino. The following line also from the same passage, is often assumed to be in contradiction with the above passage- again, because we assume that those who do not know about the Church, are known to us. So they are visible exceptions to the dogma and the passage above.This is a subtle error and very common.

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.

So there is no contradiction between the two passages here. Neither is it opposed to the message of Cantate Domino.


Lionel Andrades

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

Back to top Go down

Re: SSPX should be allowed to use the basilicas in Rome for Mass : extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Post  Lionel Andrades on Wed Feb 06, 2013 11:19 am

Traditionalists not welcome in Catholic churches: they first have to accept the doctrine of the dead-saved are physially visible to us and then adapt this new doctrine to Vatican Council II
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/02/traditionalists-not-welcome-in-catholic.html#links

Lionel Andrades

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

Back to top Go down

Re: SSPX should be allowed to use the basilicas in Rome for Mass : extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Post  George Brenner on Wed Feb 06, 2013 12:02 pm

Lionel,


When I posted on your blog I was under the impression that you as I do to felt strongly that many Catholics do not teach Our Faith clearly to Catholics and non Catholics. I was under the impression that your walking dead or living for that matter simply meant that we no longer had the obligation to convert and teach our faith with the certainty that there is no Salvation outside the Catholic Church and the necessity of Baptism of water. I felt that we had much common ground on who knows how many clerics believe that we need not "go forth and teach all nations etc...... I do feel as you do that many small letter ' c ' Catholics feel that their non Catholicic friends are good ol' boys and sincere and will end up in eternity just fine and there is no need to tell, teach and explain to them the truth about our Faith being the One , Holy, Catholic Church.
I did not realize until you started posting on this forum again that you have your own version of what you think Church teaching should be on No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church along with baptism of blood, baptism of desire and Invincible ignorance.

So Lionel just so I can understand your end game, with your line of thinking, please finish this sentence. I, Lionel believe that if the Catholic Church teaches and believes as I do on these matters the conclusion will be: be__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

JMJ,


George
avatar
George Brenner

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

Back to top Go down

Re: SSPX should be allowed to use the basilicas in Rome for Mass : extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Post  MRyan on Wed Feb 06, 2013 12:26 pm

All should take note of the fact that Lionel refuses to address my responses to his specific arguments, and simply regurgitates the same selected dogmatic and magisterial texts without addressing within the very same texts the passages which provide context and the true understanding of the Church.

I asked Lionel to show me where Cantate Domino “defined” that "every one needs to be a formal member of the Church for salvation" (as he understands it), and he simply cites the same dogmatic Bull, this time adding emphasis to selected parts that are supposed to prove his assertion, but do not.

For example, I wrote:

It [Cantate Domino] says no such thing, at least not as you interpret it. It actually says "It (the council) firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives;"

The Church also infallibly teaches that one may be "joined to the Catholic Church" by "being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery"; and that "without having received Baptism ... This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament." (CCC 1258, 1260)
The first part of Cantate Domino cited above is a formal dogmatic definition, and when the Bull, after the semicolon, adds “and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation”, she is not “defining” that no one can be “joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives” in the extra-sacramental bonds of faith and charity, she is defining the importance of external “unity” in the specific context of those who remain who alone can profit by the sacraments. She is addressing the obstinate heretics who have left her and/or refuse to join her; those, in other words, who do not “remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church” and thus, cannot profit by participating in the divine life of the Church.

And it is in that context alone that the Bull declares:

No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.
Again, Cantate Domino:

It (the council) firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives;"
Now note the infallible words of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium #14:

Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own. (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium #14)
This same “understanding” was taught by Saint and Doctor Robert Bellarmine, the very Doctor whose definition of external Church membership was made definitive by Pope Pius XII:

Outside the Church no one is saved, should be understood of those who belong to the Church neither in reality nor in desire, just as theologians commonly speak about baptism. Because catechumens, even though not in church in re (in reality), are in the church in voto (by desire), and in that way they can be saved.” (De Ecclesia militante) , chap 3., ed. Giuliano, vol. 2, p. 76.)
Please note the consistency of the Church in teaching this same understanding of the dogma, even codifying it into law under the reign of Benedict XV:

Baptism, the gateway and foundation of the Sacraments, necessary for all for salvation in re or at least in desire, is not validly conferred except by washing with true and natural water along with the prescribed formula of words." (1917 Codex Iuris Canonici)
Neither does Lionel address my response to his citation of Dominus Iesus 20, where I said:

Thank you for proving my point, "This doctrine must not be set against the universal salvific will of God (cf. 1 Tim 2:4); it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation”.

The two truths must be kept TOGETHER as one dogma, not as two doctrines having nothing to do one to the other. There is ONE dogma of no salvation outside the Church, understood as the Church understands it; and she understands that we must keep these truths together by recognizing that no one can be saved who is not finally joined to the Church in reality (in re), or at least in desire (in voto).

In other words, that is precisely what you have done; you have “set” the doctrine of the necessity of external incorporation “against the universal salvific will of God” that allows for internal incorporation, for you do NOT keep “these two truths together”, you keep them apart, as distinct and separate doctrines, only one of which, you say, represents the true dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.
As Fr. Hardon said, "At the Second Council of the Vatican, both streams of doctrine were delicately welded into a composite whole:

[The Council] relies on sacred Scripture and Tradition in teaching that this pilgrim Church is necessary for salvation. Christ alone is the mediator of salvation and the way of salvation. He presents himself to us in his Body, which is the Church. When he insisted expressly on the necessity for faith and baptism, he asserted at the same time the necessity for the Church which men would enter by the gateway of baptism. This means that it would be impossible for men to be saved if they refused to enter or to remain in the Catholic Church, unless they were unaware that her foundation by God through Jesus Christ made it a necessity. (Lumen Gentium, II, 14)"
Lionel, you have perfected the fine art of talking out of both sides of your mouth when you say, “So in 2013 every one needs to be a formal, visible member of the Church for salvation. There are no exceptions”; and then, from the other side of your mouth you say in the same breadth, this dogma "does not exclude some one being saved who is not a visible member" of the Church.”

And this, you say with a straight face (I presume your existence is possible even if I cannot see you), is not a contradiction; and neither is “salvation outside of formal visible membership” an exception to “no salvation outside of formal visible membership”.

Lionel, you congratulate Jehanne for his long-suffering and patience in having to put up with not only “evil”, “but sometimes stupid immaturity” on this forum.

You have no idea.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2257
Reputation : 2429
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: SSPX should be allowed to use the basilicas in Rome for Mass : extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Post  MRyan on Wed Feb 06, 2013 12:45 pm

Lionel Andrades wrote:George,

We are back to the problem of assuming that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are visible to us.
No, Lionel, "we are back" to no such twaddle; which is nothing more than a logical fallacy borne of your fertile imagination and a flawed if not totally heterodox understanding of the dogma.

We see no "dead men walking" in salvation, but only the inanity of your futile attempts at trying to reconcile your irreconcilable sophism with dogmatic truth, as the Church understands this same truth.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2257
Reputation : 2429
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: SSPX should be allowed to use the basilicas in Rome for Mass : extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Post  Lionel Andrades on Thu Feb 07, 2013 5:32 am

George

I did not realize until you started posting on this forum again that you have your own version of what you think Church teaching should be on No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church along with baptism of blood, baptism of desire and Invincible ignorance.

Lionel
I realized there was a problem on my blog when you often would not address the actual things I wrote about and spoke in general on the need for prayer etc and which I did agree with you.

I notice among supporters of Fr.Leonard Feeney, who mean well, they assume that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

They say if you accept the baptism of desire, even one case, then it means there is an exception to the dogma Cantate Domino and so you reject the dogma.
This would be true if I knew of a single explicit case on earth.

For example I could say."Hey, look at this person he has been saved with the baptism of desire. So it means that every one does not have to be a visible member of the Catholic Church for salvation."

But we do not know any explicit case of the baptism of desire and so even if there is someone saved in another religion with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance it is not relevant to Cantate Domino. Every one still needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church for salvation, just as Fr.Leonard Feeney taught.

So when I read the Catechism and Vatican Council II things appear rational and clear.

CCC 1257 does not contradict it self. Since someone could be saved in principle without the Sacrament of Basptism and this does not contradict the teaching also in CCC 1257 that the baptism of water is necessary for all for salvation.

Similarly with Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 and CCC 836 there is no contradiction and no confusion.Thanks to Cardinal Ratzinger and the others who put together the Catechism.



So Lionel just so I can understand your end game, with your line of thinking, please finish this sentence. I, Lionel believe that if the Catholic Church teaches and believes as I do on these matters the conclusion will be: be______________________________________________________________________

Lionel Andrades

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

Back to top Go down

Re: SSPX should be allowed to use the basilicas in Rome for Mass : extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Post  Lionel Andrades on Thu Feb 07, 2013 5:34 am

Lionel

So Lionel just so I can understand your end game, with your line of thinking, please finish this sentence.

I, Lionel believe that if the Catholic Church teaches and believes as I do on these matters the conclusion will be: be______________________________________________________________________.

I Lionel believe that the Catholic Church teaches that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. I am sure of this when I read the Magisterial docments and there is no 'if' about.

Lionel Andrades

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

Back to top Go down

Re: SSPX should be allowed to use the basilicas in Rome for Mass : extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Post  Lionel Andrades on Thu Feb 07, 2013 5:46 am

Michael:
All should take note of the fact that Lionel refuses to address my responses to his specific arguments, and simply regurgitates the same selected dogmatic and magisterial texts without addressing within the very same texts the passages which provide context and the true understanding of the Church.

Lionel:
'selected dogmatic and magisterial texts'
They tell us that being saved with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or to Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council.

I can quote these texts since I do not assume implicit to us salvation is explicit in 2013.Otherwise these texts would be very confusing.

Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino (1441): "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the "eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."-, Wikipedia, extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Outside the Church there is no salvation"

CCC 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...


Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II:
Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church.-Lumen Gentium 14

Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door.-Ad Gentes 7


Above all else, it must be firmly believed 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 (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”. This doctrine must not be set against the universal salvific will of God (cf. 1 Tim 2:4); “it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation”.- Dominus Iesus 20

Lionel Andrades

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

Back to top Go down

Re: SSPX should be allowed to use the basilicas in Rome for Mass : extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Post  Lionel Andrades on Thu Feb 07, 2013 5:50 am


Michael:
"It (the council) firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives;"

The Church also infallibly teaches that one may be "joined to the Catholic Church" by "being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery"; and that "without having received Baptism ... This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament." (CCC 1258, 1260)

Lionel
The Church also infallibly teaches that one may be "joined to the Catholic Church" by "being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery"; and that "without having received Baptism ...

Do you know someone Michael, who can choose to be joined to the Church with the baptism of desire or blood ?

We can only choose to be joined with the Church visibly, with visible baptism of water and Catholic Faith.



Lionel Andrades

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

Back to top Go down

Re: SSPX should be allowed to use the basilicas in Rome for Mass : extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Post  Lionel Andrades on Thu Feb 07, 2013 5:55 am

Michael:
Now note the infallible words of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium #14:

Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own. (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium #14)

Lionel:
There are no infallible words above which state that these cases are explicit for us.
So how can it be an exception for Cantate Domino ?
Zero cases of something are not exception.
No Church Council, pope or saint makes this claim Michael.

Michael:
This same “understanding” was taught by Saint and Doctor Robert Bellarmine, the very Doctor whose definition of external Church membership was made definitive by
Lionel:
He never said that these cases were explciit for us humans.

Michael:
Pope Pius XII:

Outside the Church no one is saved, should be understood of those who belong to the Church neither in reality nor in desire, just as theologians commonly speak about baptism. Because catechumens, even though not in church in re (in reality), are in the church in voto (by desire), and in that way they can be saved.” (De Ecclesia militante) , chap 3., ed. Giuliano, vol. 2, p. 76.)

Lionel:
He does not state that these cases are explicit for us in the present times. So how can they be relevant to Cantate Domino ?

Lionel Andrades

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

Back to top Go down

Re: SSPX should be allowed to use the basilicas in Rome for Mass : extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Post  Lionel Andrades on Thu Feb 07, 2013 5:57 am

Michael:
Please note the consistency of the Church in teaching this same understanding of the dogma, even codifying it into law under the reign of Benedict XV:

Baptism, the gateway and foundation of the Sacraments, necessary for all for salvation in re or at least in desire, is not validly conferred except by washing with true and natural water along with the prescribed formula of words." (1917 Codex Iuris Canonici)

Lionel:
I agree with the above statement. I only do not consider this an explicit to us case in 2013. This is where we disagree.

Lionel Andrades

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

Back to top Go down

Re: SSPX should be allowed to use the basilicas in Rome for Mass : extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Post  Lionel Andrades on Thu Feb 07, 2013 11:46 am

Thursday, February 7, 2013
Bishop Charles Morrod in a doctrinal error says the SSPX cannot use Catholic Churches because of a doctrinal issue

As Rector at the Angelicum he taught that the baptism of desire was an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

As Secretary of the International Theological Commission he made the same error implying that those saved with implicit to us salvation are physically visible for them to be exceptions to the dogma.

Now the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) has to accept Vatican Council II with all this irrationality to be considered doctrinally-correct.Only then they can be granted space in Catholic Churches for the Sacrifice of Jesus in Holy Mass.(1)

Catholic Traditionalists meanwhile are confused over this issue and so they are not protesting against the doctrinal error of Bishop Charles Morerod.It is there in black and white on the Vatican website of the International Theological Commission (ITC).

Among supporters of Fr.Leonard Feeney, the Society of St.Pius X and sedevacantists, who mean well, they assume that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It is the same doctrinal problem as that of Bishop Morerod.

They say if you accept the baptism of desire, even one case, then it means there is an exception to the dogma Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441, which indicates every one needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church for salvation.

This is a misconception.This would be true if we knew of a single explicit case on earth. Such a case must exist visibly to be an exception.There is no visible exception.

For example I could say."Hey, look at this person he has been saved with the baptism of desire. So it means that every one does not have to be a visible member of the Catholic Church for salvation."

We do not know any explicit case of the baptism of desire and so even if there is someone saved in another religion with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance, it is not relevant to Cantate Domino. Every one still needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church for salvation, just as Fr.Leonard Feeney taught.-Lionel Andrades


1.


3.2 In his letter "concerning the remission of the excommunication of the four Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre", of March 10, 2009, Pope Benedict XVI wrote to the bishops: "The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church" [suspensio a divinis].
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/02/how-to-welcome-calvinists-lutherans.html


______________________________________________________


Former Secretary of the International Theological Commission holds that those saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance are known to us and so an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2012/02/secretary-of-international-theological.html

NO NEED FOR ‘SECRET TALKS’ ANYMORE: WE KNOW THE HERETICAL POSITION OF THE VATICAN NEGOTIATORS
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/04/no-need-for-secret-talks-anymore-we.html#links

BISHOP CHARLES MOREROD O.P IN BLATANT HERESY IS TO SPEAK BEFORE THE POPE ON ANGLICAN RELATIONS
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/09/bishop-charles-morerod-op-in-blatant.html#links


VATICAN'S INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION MAKES AN ERROR IN ITS POSITION PAPER CHRISTIANITY AND THE WORLD RELIGIONS
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/vaticans-international-theological.html#links

INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION USES PREMISE THAT IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT : LIMBO
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/international-theological-commission_29.html


The International Theological Commission's position paper Christianity and the World Religions 1997 has an objective factual error and is approved by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger : invincible ignorance is not an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/international-theological-commissions.html


INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION ASSUMES ‘SEEDS OF THE WORD’ (VATICAN COUNCIL II ) IN OTHER RELIGIONS ARE KNOWN TO US AND THIS IS AN EXPLICIT EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/international-theological-commission.html

VATICAN'S INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION MAKES AN ERROR IN ITS POSITION PAPER CHRISTIANITY AND THE WORLD RELIGIONS
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/vaticans-international-theological.html


VATICAN COUNCIL II REJECTS THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/vatican-council-ii-rejects-theology-of.html

Baptism-‘necessity of means or precept’-you wouldn’t know the difference, so why mention it ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/04/baptism-necessity-of-means-or-precept.html#links

SSPX WEBSITE: ' I believe in three baptisms for the forgiveness of sins’ ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/04/sspx-website-i-believe-in-three.html

Bishop Fellay, Fr.Schmidberger,FSSP,Joseph Fenton seem unaware the baptism of desire is not an explicit exception to the dogma
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/bishop-fellay-frschmidbergerfsspjoseph.html

NO NEED FOR ‘SECRET TALKS’ ANYMORE: WE KNOW THE HERETICAL POSITION OF THE VATICAN NEGOTIATORS
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/04/no-need-for-secret-talks-anymore-we.html#links




Traditionalists not welcome in Catholic churches: they first have to accept the doctrine of the dead-saved are physially visible to us and then adapt this new doctrine to Vatican Council II
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/02/traditionalists-not-welcome-in-catholic.html#links

Lionel Andrades

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

Back to top Go down

Re: SSPX should be allowed to use the basilicas in Rome for Mass : extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Post  MRyan on Thu Feb 07, 2013 4:39 pm

Lionel Andrades wrote:
MRyan wrote:All should take note of the fact that Lionel refuses to address my responses to his specific arguments, and simply regurgitates the same selected dogmatic and magisterial texts without addressing within the very same texts the passages which provide context and the true understanding of the Church.
They tell us that being saved with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or to Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council.
Actually that’s correct; they “are not exceptions to the dogma”, they form and complete the dogma in that “it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation”.

Lionel, what part of it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ [IN His Church] for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation” do you not understand?

Neither does the Church “assume implicit to us salvation is explicit [to us] in 2013”, that is a false statement based on a logical fallacy; the major premise of which is actually, logically speaking, quite immature. And yet, your entire ecclesiology is based on this false premise and irrational construct.

“Explicit to us” visible incorporation is a condition for salvation, but it is NOT salvation, and it is not the only condition for salvation; and it is NOT intrinsic to eternal beatitude (as is regeneration into Christ) when in fact visible external incorporation is necessary as an extrinsic necessity of means. This simply means that the Church was instituted as the chief and ordinary instrument for attaining the end, salvation, but it is NOT salvation itself.

In scholastic theology, Baptism was instituted as a simply necessity of end, the end being salvation (a state of grace) and the sacrament being the chief and ordinary means of attaining that end. In adults, there is no such thing as salvation being “explicit to us”, and you are simply confusing external incorporation for the end itself, when in fact the institutional Church and the sacraments serve as the chief and ordinary instruments of salvation, but an instrument is not the end, it is a means to that end, which may be realized in re or in voto, as the Church teaches.

In other words, Lionel, “explicit for us” external incorporation is NOT “explicit for us salvation”, and neither is the “explicit for us” de facto incorporation (in voto) of the catechumen “explicit for us salvation”.

So for you to suggest ad nauseum that salvation of the latter must be “explicit for us” if it is to serve as an exception to the necessity of visible external incorporation (the salvation of which is NOT explicit to us) is such shoddy logic that it boggles the mind that you can build a whole ecclesiology around it and blog incessantly about it.

As one error begets another, you then expose your true ecclesiology (which columba can appreciate) here, when you say:

I can quote these texts since I do not assume implicit to us salvation is explicit in 2013. Otherwise these texts would be very confusing.
In other words, “the texts would be very confusing” if they were actually understood as the Church understand them; and she understands them to say “it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ [IN His Body – the Church – in re or in voto] for all mankind and the necessity of [external incorporation in] the Church for this salvation”.

You cannot accept the understanding of the Church since your private interpretation of the dogma has one univocal meaning, there is NO salvation outside of visible external incorporation. Period. And IF there is salvation outside of visible external visible incorporation, then this doctrine MUST be kept apart from the one true dogma since it is known only to God, AS IF the salvation of a baptized adult Catholic is “explicit for us” and is NOT known only to God!

Lionel Andrades wrote:
MRyan wrote:
I asked Lionel to show me where Cantate Domino “defined” that "every one needs to be a formal member of the Church for salvation" (as he understands it), and he simply cites the same dogmatic Bull, this time adding emphasis to selected parts that are supposed to prove his assertion, but do not.

For example, I wrote:


It [Cantate Domino] says no such thing, at least not as you interpret it. It actually says "It (the council) firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives;"

The Church also infallibly teaches that one may be "joined to the Catholic Church" by "being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery"; and that "without having received Baptism ... This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament." (CCC 1258, 1260)
The first part of Cantate Domino cited above is a formal dogmatic definition, and when the Bull, after the semicolon, adds “and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation”, she is not “defining” that no one can be “joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives” in the extra-sacramental bonds of faith and charity, she is defining the importance of external “unity” in the specific context of those who remain who alone can profit by the sacraments. She is addressing the obstinate heretics who have left her and/or refuse to join her; those, in other words, who do not “remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church” and thus, cannot profit by participating in the divine life of the Church.

And it is in that context alone that the Bull declares:


No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.
Do you know someone Michael, who can choose to be joined to the Church with the baptism of desire or blood?
Why yes, as a matter of fact, I do; and so does the Church when she teaches:

Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own. (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium #14)
And of course, so too the good-faith martyr who “choose[s] to be joined to the Church with the baptism of desire [and] blood” when he chooses to shed his blood for Christ before he can be formally incorporated into the Church. His desire is explicit, and we can see it, just as we can see the external manifestation of charity that motivates the desire to suffer for Christ.

Lionel Andrades wrote:
We can only choose to be joined with the Church visibly, with visible baptism of water and Catholic Faith.
For those who know of the necessity of the Church for salvation, that is absolutely correct. But one may also choose to be joined to the Church through a desire that is implicit in an explicit faith and an explicit desire to do the will of God in all things, as the Church also teaches.

So your statement is false. Furthermore, the good-faith martyr chooses “to be joined with the Church visibly, with visible baptism of water and Catholic Faith”, even if he is prevented from doing so, but his explicit desire is fulfilled in the act of visible martyrdom.

So too does the catechumen “choose to be joined with the Church visibly, with visible baptism of water and Catholic Faith”, and it is this very same visible intention (faith/charity/desire) of the catechumen that incorporates him into the Church de facto, though not yet de jure.

Lionel Andrades wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Again, Cantate Domino:


It (the council) firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives;"
Now note the infallible words of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium #14:

Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own. (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium #14)
There are no infallible words above which state that these cases are explicit for us.
Again, Lionel, you make no sense whatsoever, for there is not a single case in 2013 of the salvation of a baptized adult Catholic that is “explicit for us”.

And of course, what you mean by “explicit for us” is explicit salvation, but that is NOT what Lumen Gentium is saying; it is saying that his de facto incorporation in the Church is explicit for us by the very fact of his explicit faith and explicit intention. And, as the Church also teaches, should he die with the proper dispositions before sacramental ablution can be conferred, he is ASSURED of salvation, just as those incorporated into the Church de jure who die with the proper dispositions are assured of salvation; and in neither case is salvation “explicit for us”.

Please show me this baptized adult Catholic whose salvation in 2013 is NOT known to God alone, but is “explicit for us” as well.

Good luck with that.

Lionel Andrades wrote:
So how can it be an exception for Cantate Domino?
It is NOT an exception to “unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives”, because the Church teaches that one may be “joined” to the Church in re, or in voto.

Lionel Andrades wrote:
Zero cases of something are not exception.
Again, you distort the true teaching by making up an irrational and illogical (and childish) straw man that says there are “Zero cases” of “visible dead men walking” and zero cases of “salvation that is explicit for us”.

So keep beating that straw-man, you might actually convince yourself that you are getting the better of it; as the Church continues to teach that what is “explicit for us” is the de facto incorporation of the good-faith catechumen and the martyr who gives his life for Christ before he can be incorporated de jure.

Lionel Andrades wrote: No Church Council, pope or saint makes this claim Michael.
Of course not, for what you propose is irrational, illogical and nonsensical; and, notwithstanding columba's claims to the contrary, the Church is none of those things.

Lionel Andrades wrote:
MRyan wrote:
This same “understanding” was taught by Saint and Doctor Robert Bellarmine, the very Doctor whose definition of external Church membership was made definitive by Pope Pius XII:

Outside the Church no one is saved, should be understood of those who belong to the Church neither in reality nor in desire, just as theologians commonly speak about baptism. Because catechumens, even though not in church in re (in reality), are in the church in voto (by desire), and in that way they can be saved.” (De Ecclesia militante) , chap 3., ed. Giuliano, vol. 2, p. 76.)
He does not state that these cases are explicit for us in the present times. So how can they be relevant to Cantate Domino ?
Then for whom were these cases of de facto visible incorporation made explicit, ghosts (who can see "dead men walking")?

And, once again, you mean “explicit salvation”, don’t you, Lionel, when anyone with common sense and who knows how to read knows that is NOT what St. Bellarmine is saying, for he is saying the exact same thing as Lumen Gentium 14.

Anyone got a match? Its time to light-up the straw-man once and for all.

Lionel Andrades wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Please note the consistency of the Church in teaching this same understanding of the dogma, even codifying it into law under the reign of Benedict XV:

Baptism, the gateway and foundation of the Sacraments, necessary for all for salvation in re or at least in desire, is not validly conferred except by washing with true and natural water along with the prescribed formula of words." (1917 Codex Iuris Canonici)
I agree with the above statement. I only do not consider this an explicit to us case in 2013. This is where we disagree.
Actually, you do not agree with it, you have rendered Trent, Session 6. Ch. 4 entirely meaningless since anyone who is sanctified by “the desire” for Baptism is not “explicit for us” (as if Lionel can see the sanctification and salvation of baptized adults), and such a possibility is, therefore, a “null set” having no relevancy whatsoever to the “true” dogma that says only those who are visibly and externally incorporated into the Church by actual sacramental ablution can be saved, and it follows that we can see the salvation of these same souls (even if we can’t).

So it only logically follows that if we cannot see the visible salvation of the faith-filled catechumen who is incorporated de facto into the Church, and if we cannot see the salvation of the martyr with a burning desire to enter the Church who could not receive Baptism through no fault of his own, then these cannot be “exceptions” to visible salvation through visible membership.

Isn’t that right, Lionel?

The logic is unassailable, as unassailable as the logic of the man who is convinced he is the Napoleon Bonaparte; just try telling him he isn't.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2257
Reputation : 2429
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: SSPX should be allowed to use the basilicas in Rome for Mass : extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Post  Lionel Andrades on Fri Feb 08, 2013 10:58 am

Michael:
Actually that’s correct; they “are not exceptions to the dogma”, they form and complete the dogma in that “it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation”.

Lionel:
Great Michael! That sounds better.


Lionel Andrades

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

Back to top Go down

Re: SSPX should be allowed to use the basilicas in Rome for Mass : extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Post  Lionel Andrades on Fri Feb 08, 2013 11:02 am

Michael:
Neither does the Church “assume implicit to us salvation is explicit [to us] in 2013”, that is a false statement based on a logical fallacy; the major premise of which is actually, logically speaking, quite immature. And yet, your entire ecclesiology is based on this false premise and irrational construct.


Lionel:
Your right the Church does not state it 8implicit to us salvation is explicit [to us] in 2013”) in its Magisterial texts but Catholics assume it wrongly as does the media. It is used in the new theology and new ecclesiology.I have to keep pointing it out so often.It is a false premise and an irrational construct.

Lionel Andrades

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

Back to top Go down

Re: SSPX should be allowed to use the basilicas in Rome for Mass : extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Post  Lionel Andrades on Fri Feb 08, 2013 11:06 am


Michael:
“Explicit to us” visible incorporation is a condition for salvation, but it is NOT salvation,

Lionel:
Visible incorporation refers to the baptism of water and Catholic Faith.It is the condition for salvation.
It also depends on the necessity of means.

You are aware that this is theology and is not the usual subject we find controversial.


and it is not the only condition for salvation; and it is NOT intrinsic to eternal beatitude (as is regeneration into Christ) when in fact visible external incorporation is necessary as an extrinsic necessity of means. This simply means that the Church was instituted as the chief and ordinary instrument for attaining the end, salvation, but it is NOT salvation itself.

Lionel:
Agreed.


Lionel Andrades

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

Back to top Go down

Re: SSPX should be allowed to use the basilicas in Rome for Mass : extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Post  Lionel Andrades on Fri Feb 08, 2013 11:17 am

Michael:
In scholastic theology, Baptism was instituted as a simply necessity of end, the end being salvation (a state of grace) and the sacrament being the chief and ordinary means of attaining that end. In adults, there is no such thing as salvation being “explicit to us”, and you are simply confusing external incorporation for the end itself,
Lionel:
When you keep repeating that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma you are saying that salvation with the baptism of desire is explicit for us.
This is why I have to keep repeating there is no implicit for us salvation which is explicit.

Michael:
when in fact the institutional Church and the sacraments serve as the chief and ordinary instruments of salvation, but an instrument is not the end, it is a means to that end, which may be realized in re or in voto, as the Church teaches.
Lionel:
We both accept the theology of the baptism of water. In re or in voto salvation is not explicit for us. So it is never an exception to every one needing to be a visible member of the church. Salvation in re in voto with implicit desire etc are always implicit for us.

Michael:
In other words, Lionel, “explicit for us” external incorporation is NOT “explicit for us salvation”, and neither is the “explicit for us” de facto incorporation (in voto) of the catechumen “explicit for us salvation”.

Lionel:
There is no explicit for us salvation, there is no visible salvation.So the baptism of desire is never visible. You still say like the sedevacantists that these are exceptions to the dogma.The sedes reject explicit- to- us baptism of desire and you accept it with some kind of theology known to you, about it being included in the dogma.


Lionel Andrades

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

Back to top Go down

Re: SSPX should be allowed to use the basilicas in Rome for Mass : extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Post  MRyan on Fri Feb 08, 2013 2:04 pm

Lionel wrote:
Michael wrote:

In scholastic theology, Baptism was instituted as a simply necessity of end, the end being salvation (a state of grace) and the sacrament being the chief and ordinary means of attaining that end. In adults, there is no such thing as salvation being “explicit to us”, and you are simply confusing external incorporation for the end itself, ...
When you keep repeating that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma you are saying that salvation with the baptism of desire is explicit for us.
Sorry Lionel, but you are not being consistent. You already acknowledged and agreed with my repeated assertion that says:

Actually that’s correct; they [the baptisms of blood and desire] “are not exceptions to the dogma”, they form and complete the dogma in that “it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation”.
To which you responded: “Great Michael! That sounds better.”

So it “sounds better” when we acknowledge that the baptisms of blood and desire form a part of, and are integral to, a correct understanding of the salvation dogmas, and are not “exceptions” to the necessity of all men to be finally joined to the Church if they are to be saved, but are exceptions only to the extrinsic necessity of means that calls all men to external incorporation, which may be fulfilled in voto when prevented by an obstacle (without fault) to visible incorporation.

I’m glad we can agree.

Despite this, you allege once again that “When” I “keep repeating that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma you are saying that salvation with the baptism of desire is explicit for us”, when this is absolutely false, and you simply cannot demonstrate where I have suggested “that salvation with the baptism of desire is explicit for us” when I went to great lengths (and patience) in demonstrating that the only thing “explicit for us” is the visible faith and intention of the catechumen, and the visible faith and desire of the non-Baptized martyr, which, as the Church infallibly teaches, “by that very intention” catechumens are “joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.”

Or, as St. Robert Bellarmine taught:

Because catechumens, even though not in church in re (in reality), are in the church in voto (by desire), and in that way they can be saved.” (De Ecclesia militante)
To be “joined with the Church” in the visible bonds of faith and desire (in voto) is to be incorporated into the Church de facto, but not de jure, and nowhere does this unity suggests “explicit or us salvation”.

So when you repeat over and over again “There is no explicit for us salvation, there is no visible salvation. So the baptism of desire is never visible”, you don’t even realize that the baptism of desire does NOT assume the visible explicit (certainty) of salvation for anyone, but recognizes two things:

1) That catechumens, for example, by their explicit faith and intention, are by that very same intention “joined with the Church”, in other words, they are in de facto unity with the Church (but not yet de jure); and

2) That this very same intention (faith, charity, desire) will assure them of salvation (if sincere) should they die before the sacrament can be conferred (the baptism of desire).

Lionel, you really can’t respond directly to my reasoned and detailed arguments (notice how you ignore much of it), so you simply repeat your stale and discredited mantra, which is nothing more than a logical fallacy, a straw-man of your own creation.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2257
Reputation : 2429
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: SSPX should be allowed to use the basilicas in Rome for Mass : extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Post  Lionel Andrades on Mon Feb 11, 2013 5:34 am

Michael:
So it “sounds better”

Michael:
Actually that’s correct; they “are not exceptions to the dogma”, they form and complete the dogma in that “it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation”.

Lionel:
Great Michael! That sounds better

Lionel:
I am repeating Dominus Iesus 20 that there is salvation available in potential for all,Jesus died for all and at the same time, we must remember that to receive this salvation, all need to enter the Church. The Church is necessary.
It is important to keep these two truths to gether.

Theologically we agree.
The only difference arises when you assume like the sedevacantists Peter and Michael Dimond that the baptism of desire is visible for us and so it is an exception to every one needing to be a visible member of the Catholic Church for salvation.

They reject the baptism of desire and you accept it and assume it is part of the dogma in some way.

Lionel Andrades

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

Back to top Go down

Re: SSPX should be allowed to use the basilicas in Rome for Mass : extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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