The false premise in Vatican Council II.

The only real doctrinal issue between Fr.Arnaud Rostand and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is that of the false premise in Vatican Council II.

Fr. Arnaud Rostand is interviewed by Gloria TV and The Remnant newspaper.Neither does Gloria TV, The Remnant or the Society of St.Pius X(SSPX) Superior in the USA, realize that they are using a false premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and this is the only doctrinal issue or error.


If it is said that Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors then it is implied that the false premise is being used by the person interpreting the Council.The false premise is assuming that the dead saved in invincible ignorance etc are visible exceptions to the dogma on salvation.Irrational? Yes but this is the false premise being used.

This is the basis for the Jewish Left saying often that Vatican Council II has ushered in a 'revolution' in the Catholic Church.

When Wikipedia for instance says Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance and a good conscience) is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, they mean, one can see cases on earth saved in invincible ignorance etc.If we did not know these cases obviously they would not be 'exceptions'.

This is the key doctrinal issue omitted in the Vatican-SSPX talks.The actual doctrinal issue which makes the Council traditional or modernist was not discussed.-

Lionel Andrades wrote:
If it is said that Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors then it is implied that the false premise is being used by the person interpreting the Council.The false premise is assuming that the dead saved in invincible ignorance etc are visible exceptions to the dogma on salvation.Irrational? Yes but this is the false premise being used.

Actually, your false premise assumes that anyone actually assumes the false premise "that the dead saved in invincible ignorance etc are visible exceptions to the dogma on salvation".

Why do you say such "irrational" things as this when it simply isn't true?

The premise that assumes VCII contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors (on matters of immutable faith or morals) is false.

The premise that assumes the invincibly ignorant can be saved without supernatural faith is false.

The premise that assumes no one can be saved without visible or material (in re) membership/incorporation in the Catholic Church is false.

In other words, if is a false premise that assumes that the internal bond of perfect charity that unites one with our Lord (and with His Body in voto) requires the additional bond of external membership even when prevented by some necessity.

Feenyites make this false assumption, the SSPX does not.

Actually, your false premise assumes that anyone actually assumes the false premise "that the dead saved in invincible ignorance etc are visible exceptions to the dogma on salvation".


Lionel:

The false premise is to assume that we can see the dead saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.

It is false to assume that implicit salvation is visible and then to imply that it is an exception to the dogma.

Lionel Andrades wrote:It is false to assume that implicit salvation is visible and then to imply that it is an exception to the dogma.

Lionel,

This is a really great statement. The 1949 Holy Office letter, so often quoted (and even referenced at Vatican II and the present CCC), states:

Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition "in which they cannot be sure of their salvation" since "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church" (AAS, 1. c., p. 243). With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution, <Singulari quadam>, in <Denzinger>, n. 1641 ff.; also Pope Pius IX in the encyclical letter, <Quanto conficiamur moerore>, in <Denzinger>, n. 1677).

Non-Catholics cannot be sure that they are in a state of grace, which means that we can be even less sure that they are in a state of grace, so any "ecumenism" must first begin with these words:

WE ARE COMPELLED, OUR FAITH URGING us, to believe and to hold—and we do firmly believe and simply confess—that there is one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside of which there is neither salvation nor remission of sins...Indeed we declare, say, pronounce, and define that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

The Lateran, November 14, in our eighth year. As a perpetual memorial of this matter.

Yes Jehanne!
It makes sense.

Lionel Andrades wrote:

MRyan wrote:
Actually, your false premise assumes that anyone actually assumes the false premise "that the dead saved in invincible ignorance etc are visible exceptions to the dogma on salvation".

The false premise is to assume that we can see the dead saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.

As I said, the SSPX does not assume this, so where is your proof? What is gratuitously stated is gratuitously denied.

Lionel Andrades wrote:
It is false to assume that implicit salvation is visible and then to imply that it is an exception to the dogma.

Simple: prove that the SSPX "assume[s] that implicit salvation is visible". I'll be waiting.

There are no "exceptions" to the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, but there are exceptions to the extrinsic necessity of materiel or external membership in the institutional Church, as the Church teaches.

There is no such thing as "implicit salvation", visible or otherwise. There is only implicit desire and implicit faith that do not and cannot affect or serve as "exceptions" to the absolute necessity of supernatural faith and regeneration into Christ - the head of the Mystical Body.

I am not unfamiliar with the teachings of the SSPX on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, and all I see is a straw-man of your own creation. Produce the evidence that the SSPX assumes "that the dead saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are visible exceptions to the dogma on salvation".

Show us the evidence, and we can go from there. If you can't produce the evidence, I will "assume" you do not know what you are talking about.

Lionel,

While we are waiting for you to produce the evidence, let me try a different tact, if only that I might glean some insight into where you are coming from.

We are in full agreement that:

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.” (Dominus Iesus)

However, DI also teaches, "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".

Now, I would agree that the former doctrine is “irrelevant” to the latter only to the extent that the dogmatic truth of the latter remains true, but the correct understanding of the doctrine that allows these truths to be held together (as they must) is not “irrelevant” in the least since it goes straight to the heart of a correct understanding of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

Please tell me if the correct understanding of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, as it is presented by the 1949 Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, is “irrelevant” to the dogma itself:

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

Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.

Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.

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).

Thanks.

Lionel,

You might be interested in the thread “Vatican II taught that one must be Catholic in order to be saved”. (https://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t944-vatican-ii-taught-that-one-must-be-catholic-in-order-to-be-saved)

In it, I wrote:

“Let’s stay with LG 16, as it is cited and translated by Ralph Martin in ‘Freeing the New Evangelization: Removing Doctrinal Confusion’”:

Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But very often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.( Cf Rom 1:21, 25) Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature",(130) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.

Martin explains:

[T]he possibility of salvation doesn’t exist in some neutral vacuum. There are opposing forces that seek to impel human beings to reject the light of conscience and prefer the works of darkness to the works of light, to seek self rather than God, and to do what satisfies the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life, rather than the will of God (1 Jn. 2: 15-17). In other words, the world, the flesh and the devil are formidable obstacles to responding to the light and grace that God gives. The Council acknowledges such with a rather striking reference to the downward spiral triggered by bad conscience that is described in the first chapter of Romans.

It is precisely these human beings without the gospel who “very often” (“more often” is perhaps the best translation of the Latin at saepius) yield to the deception of the devil, the allure of the flesh and the world, the intellectual, moral and spiritual confusion that comes from pride. Such people become subject to the just judgment of God, his wrath, since their choice against grace, against conscience and the light is “inexcusable.” (Romans 1: 18-32)

(http://www.renewalministries.net/files/freeliterature/freeing_the_new_evangelization.pdf)

"So, 'just because something is possible' does not mean that it is 'probable', after all, 'more often [than not]… they have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator truth'.”

It is false to assume that implicit salvation is visible and then to imply that it is an exception to the dogma.

Lionel,This is a really great statement.
Jehanne


MRyan
it is true that "Every one needs to be a visible member of the Church, with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water (AG 7) to go to Heaven and avoid Hell."

The fact that he was not a visible member of the Church, or was not visible to us, is entirely irrelevant to his unity with the Mystical Body in voto, and his salvation. -from Vatican Council II does not contradict the traditional teaching on other religions: message for Econe (Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus forum)

The false premise is simple. It is not theology.
Usually the discussions on this issue are on theology.
First comes the premise that the dead are visible. Thn the theology follows, true or false.

Lionel wrote

MRyan wrote:
it is true that "Every one needs to be a visible member of the Church, with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water (AG 7) to go to Heaven and avoid Hell."

The fact that he was not a visible member of the Church, or was not visible to us, is entirely irrelevant to his unity with the Mystical Body in voto, and his salvation.

-from Vatican Council II does not contradict the traditional teaching on other religions: message for Econe (Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus forum)

The false premise is simple. It is not theology.
Usually the discussions on this issue are on theology.
First comes the premise that the dead are visible. Thn the theology follows, true or false.

You have yet to demonstrate where VCII or the SSPX have said “the dead are visible” (those saved outside of visible communion with the Church).

The premise is simple, show me the evidence.

Here is the First One.

SSPX SELLS HERETICAL BOOK BASED ON THE IRRATIONALITY OF THE DEAD MAN WALKING THEORY

Here is the blurb of a book being sold by the SSPX.

Sr. Sunshine says, "All nice people go to heaven."
Fr. Overreact says, "Only water-baptized Catholics go to heaven."
Both are dead wrong!

Lionel:
Only water baptized Catholics go to Heaven -yes! Unless the SSPX knows some case in 2012 which is an exception? Can Fr.Laisney name any exception in 2012 ? No he cannot but he assumes like the SSPX bishops that there are dead man walking on earth who are saved. He assumes that these cases can be explicit.

Question 321, Baltimore Catechism: "How can those be saved who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism?"
Answer: "Those who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism can be saved through what is called baptism of blood or baptism of desire." Period. Amen... for most of us.

Lionel:
Yes we accept in principle that they can be saved with the baptism of desire and blood- period! The Baltimore Catechism does not say that we know these cases in the present times and neither does it state that these cases must be considered exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The SSPX implies that the dead man walking saved with the baptism of desire is an exception and explicit for us. They extend this fault to their interpretation of Vatican Council II.

For instance they cannot provide any reference in Vatican Council II which contradicts the traditional teaching on other religions unless they are using the dead man walking theory.

But some, who even call themselves traditional Catholics, cannot accept this simple teaching of our catechism. They cannot accept baptism of desire because they confuse the grace of baptism (which is necessary for salvation) with the character of baptism (which is not necessary for salvation). Because of this confusion, they deny the simple truth that all that is really necessary for salvation is to die in the state of grace.

Lionel:
Those who die in a state of grace and do not allegely receive the baptism of water, are known only to God.How can the SSPX presume that we know these cases and if we do not know these cases why mention it? How does it contradict the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney if these cases are not visible on earth ? The baptism of desire has nothing to do with his interpretation.Zero cases of something are not exceptions says the apologist John Martigioni.

This is serious. And you need to know how to address these errors, how to defend the orthodox Faith, how to defend yourself and your family, and how to help those sitting in the darkness of error. This book examines these simple truths of our catechism. Quoting heavily the Church's Magisterium, Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the writings of the Saints, Fr. Laisney explains the Church's teaching on Baptism of Desire. A defense of Catholicism, not of false ecumenism. Father's new edition is twice the size of his original work and is enriched and made more convincing by copious quotations from the writings of the Saints.

Lionel:
No where in the writings of the ' Church's Magisterium, Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Saints' is it said that the baptism of desire is visible and so an exception to anything. One has to wrongly assume it and the SSPX does so.

The SSPX book implies that implicit salvation is explicit.Then they conclude that Vatican Council II contradicts Tradition, the dogma on salvation, the Syllabus of Errors, ecumenism and the traditional teaching on other religions.
-Lionel Andrades

(This is from the internt angeluspress.org.
I am not allowed yet to provide a link)

Here is the Second One.
DOCTRINAL ERROR OF ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE AND SSPX BISHOPS POSTED A NEW ON U.S WEBSITE

SSPX repeats heresy of rejecting Vatican Council II and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with allegedly visible cases of persons saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.

The SSPX U.S website has reposted an article by Fr.Francois Laisney which indicates that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) is still struck with the dead man walking on earth virus. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops have also assumed that the baptism of desire is relevant to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.

This means the SSPX still interprets the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 as a break with Tradition. So they would also be interpreted Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance etc) as a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors.Then they blame Vatican Council II !

Without the premise of the dead man walking saved with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance, the interpretation of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and Vatican Council II changes.

So much of analysis and verbiage and yet Fr. Laisney and Fr.Peter Scott on this website will not answer two simple questions.

Fr.Francois Laisney and the SSPX are making the same error of the progressives. The assume the dead saved can be seen and then presume that these cases are exceptions or relevant to the literal interpretaion of Fr.Leonard Feeney.

The SSPX General Chapter has stated that there are no exceptions- Fr.Laisney says there are exceptions to the dogma!

Whether the baptism of desire results in justification or salvation is irrelevant to the dogma since we do not know and cannot know any of these cases.
-Lionel Andrades

(for the link you will have to go to my blog. See the tag SSPX)

Here is the third one.

Fr. Francois Laisney, Fr. Peter Scott like Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J is saying that the Catholic Church is no more Exclusivist ecclesiocentric: SSPX priests and liberals agree that there are explicit exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma outside the church no salvation
(For the link see the Label: Fr.Francois Laisney, on my blog.
For a copy of the text in Fr.Laisney's book may be Rasha can help you.)

I cannot provide the link here sinc the Administrator says:

New members are not allowed to post external links or emails for 7 days. Please contact the forum administrator for more information.

Here is the Fourth one.

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre says:

"Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.” (The Angelus, “A Talk Heard Round the World,” April, 2006, p. 5.)


Lionel: These cases are known only to God so they are irrelevant to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney. So why mention these 'exceptions'? Is he implying that a person who follows his conscience and is saved (LG 16) is known to us and so is an exception to the dogma?

(The above quotation is often used on Traditionalist forums to criticize the supporters of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
They assume that these cases are explicit ; visible to us and then they imply that these cases are exceptions to the dogma on salvation.)
2


SSPX founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, "Against the Heresies",p.216


“Evidently,certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism,etc.), but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions,who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire.

It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”

(Again supporters of the SSPX use this quotation above to imply that there are known exceptions to the dogma and Fr. Leonard Feeney's interpretation)
Lionel: So what if they are saved in their religion ? We do not personally know who they are. Is he implying that we do know these cases and so they are exceptions to Fr.Leonard Feeney ?

The SSPX bishops have also made the same error and so they imply that seeds of the word, imperfect communion with the church, invincible ignorance, a good conscience etc mentioned in Vatican Council II are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Church's traditional teaching on other religions.

So the fault is not with the Council but with the false premise used by the SSPX religious and this influences their theology.

Here is the Fifth One.
It is from Rorate Caili. It is written by an SSPX supporter.I have added my comments. However see his understanding of the baptism of desire etc.

Ecclesia Militans said...
Brother André Marie,
I've studied the articles and I must say that they do not make a convincing argument against the threefold Baptism.

Lionel:
it is important to note that there is only one baptism which is explicit. It is the baptism of water.

Ecclesia Militans
Other than quoting the many various forms of the dogma extra Ecclesiam nulla salus and discussions and speculations on St. Augustine's view, there are only two or three marginal quotes by doctors that speak against the threefold Baptism.

Lionel:
We can only accept the baptism of desire and martrydom in pinciple. Explicitly we do not know any case, we cannot judge.If the Church declares someone a martyr we accept it.

Ecclesia Militans
As for St. Emerentiana, I see that Fr. Feeney decided to deny Tradition by saying she must have been baptised in water before martyrdom, although she has always been counted as an unbaptized cathecumen who died for Christ and received the Baptism of Blood.

On the other hand, I present you a short list of those important documents, theologians, bishops and doctors that explicitly affirmed the threefold Baptism (most of the quotes are found in the article mentioned in my last comment, if you wish, I can send you the others by mail):

Lionel:
In this list it is important to note that none of them said that the baptism of desire and the baptism of blood were explicitly known to us or that we could judge these cases in general or that they were explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Ecclesia Militans
St. Cyprian BM, Tertullian, St. Cyril of Jerusalem BCD, St. John Chrysostome BCD, St. Ambrose BCD, St. Augustine BCD, St. Thomas Aquinas CD, St. Catherine of Sienna V, Ecumenical Council of Trent, Catechism of the Council of Trent, St. Alphonsus Liguori BCD, Pope Pius IX, Baltimore Cathechism (19th century), The Cathechism Explained (1899), Cathechism of Pope St. Pius X, Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), Code of Canon Law (1917), Catholic Dictionary (1946), Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office (1949), mons.
(He is implying that they all were referring to an explicit, visible baptism of desire. If they were not explicit and visible how could they be exceptions to the dogma?)
Lionel:
They all were in agrement with Fr.Leonard Feeney.Since the baptism of desire is never visible to us humans.

Ecclesia Militans
Joseph Fenton (1952), Archbishop Lefebvre FSSPX, Fr. Schmidberger FSSPX, Bishop Fellay FSSPX...

Lionel:
They seem unaware too that the baptism of desire etc are not defacto exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Ecclesia Militans
The inescapable conclusion is that the doctrine of Fr. Feeney denies or contradicts the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium as expressed through the above teachings of the said theologians, doctors etc.

Lionel:
Fr.Leonrd Feeney said that there is only one baptism, the baptism of water . This is the only explicit baptism. For salvation all people need the baptism of water and there are no known exceptions.This is the teaching of the Magisterium as expressed through the above mentioned theologians, doctors etc.This is the teaching of the following:

St. Cyprian BM, Tertullian, St. Cyril of Jerusalem BCD, St. John Chrysostome BCD, St. Ambrose BCD, St. Augustine BCD, St. Thomas Aquinas CD, St. Catherine of Sienna V, Ecumenical Council of Trent, Catechism of the Council of Trent, St. Alphonsus Liguori BCD, Pope Pius IX, Baltimore Cathechism (19th century), The Cathechism Explained (1899), Cathechism of Pope St. Pius X, Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), Code of Canon Law (1917), Catholic Dictionary (1946), Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office (1949), mons.

Ecclesia Militans
It even goes against the Code of Canon Law which was valid at the time (canons 737 & 1239).

Lionel:
No magisterial document states that the baptism of desire etc are explicitly known to us or an exception to the dogma.

Ecclesia Militans
you can see that to assert that so many theologians, doctors, popes and Church documents were in error for so many centuries is to deny the indefectibility of the Church.St. Alphonsus Liguori calls the baptism of desire de fide,...

Lionel:
Yes it is de fide and accepted in principle. It cannot be known explicitly and so it does not contradict the dogma or Fr.Leonard Feeney.

Ecclesia Militans
and St. Cyprian BM, back in the 3rd century, seems to call those who do not believe in the Baptism of Blood of the cathecumens "aiders and favourers of heretics".

Lionel:
The baptism of blood is not an exception to the dogma.

Ecclesia Militans
In short and precise quote:

"Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control.“

Lionel:
Correct and we do not know any case of a non Catholic on earth who is saved in invincible ignorance or is going to be saved.

Ecclesia Militans
(He quotes from Pope Pius IX, SINGULARI QUIDEM. EWTN library)

Lionel:
No where does Pope Pius IX say that the baptism of desire etc are exceptions to the dogma or that they are explicit. On has to make this wrong assumption.The popes do not make this assumption.

(For the links to the Rorate Caeili post you will have to go to my blog)

Here is the Sixth One
(25.09.2010) on a pro-SSPX forum Fisheaters Traditional Catholic Forum I asked an administrator, (who said Abp. Lefebvre did not agree with the rigorist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus) where is the text, the proof for the claim. It could not be the following text often quoted by the Society of St. Pius X?
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, p. 216:

“Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions, who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire. It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”[Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, Angelus Press, 1997, p. 216]

Bishop Lefebvre, Address given at Rennes, France: “If men are saved in Protestantism, Buddhism or Islam, they are saved by the Catholic Church, by the grace of Our Lord, by the prayers of those in the Church, by the blood of Our Lord as individuals, perhaps through the practice of their religion, perhaps of what they understand in their religion, but not by their religion…” [Quoted in Bro. Robert Mary, Fr. Feeney and the Truth About Salvation, p. 213]

I just finished reading the last will and testaments of Popes John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul II along with the last sermon given by Paul VI. All I can say is that I found them very powerful and inspirational in love of Faith and feel that they do shed much light on what we sometimes foolishly debate with little wisdom, understanding and poor judgement. I particularly was touched by Pope Paul VI last sermon but there is an incredible amount said in the dying Popes words to God and Church for all of us to pause, pray and reflect upon and most importantly hopefully learn from.


A very brief quote from Pope Paul VI, last will and testament follows:

On the state of the Church: May she listen to a few of our words, uttered with seriousness and love for her.

Concerning the Council: May it be brought to a good climax and be executed faithfully. Regarding ecumenism: May the work of bringing together separated brothers proceed with much understanding, patience and great love, but without defecting from true Catholic doctrine.

Concerning the world: Do not think the Church can help it by assuming its thoughts, customs, tastes, but rather by studying it, loving it, serving it.

I close my eyes upon this sad, dramatic and magnificent earth calling once again still on divine kindness. I again bless everyone. Especially Rome, Milan, Brescia. A special blessing and greeting to the Holy Land, the land of Jesus, where I was a pilgrim of faith and peace.

And to the Church, to the most beloved Catholic Church, and to the whole of humanity, my apostolic blessing.

Then: Into your hands, O Lord, I commend my spirit.

JMJ,

George

Beautiful!

Awww George , what beautiful meaningless flowery words from three manifest heretics that are not even catholics nevermind popes. Makes my heart sing Anymore quotes from them?

The mocking irreverent sedevacantist, in torment, raised his eyes and saw Peter far off and Pope John Paul II at his side. And he cried out, ‘St. Peter, have pity on me. Send your brother John Paul II to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am suffering torment in these flames.'

Peter replied, 'between us and you a great chasm is established to prevent anyone from crossing who might wish to go from our side to yours or from your side to ours. My child, remember that you received what was good during your lifetime while my brother Vicar likewise received scorn and long-suffering; but now he is comforted here, whereas you are tormented.'

But the irreverent sede, worried about his irreverent fellow-travelers who mock the Vicars of Christ, insists: 'Oh no, your Holiness, but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.' Then Peter said, 'If they will not listen to Our Lord who speaks through Us, neither will they be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead.'

MRyan said :

But the irreverent sede, worried about his irreverent fellow-travelers who mock the Vicars of Christ, insists: 'Oh no, your Holiness, but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.' Then Peter said, 'If they will not listen to Our Lord who speaks through Us, neither will they be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead.'

Well said with calmness, reverence and most importantly truth. An attack on Peter is an attack on Jesus.


God Bless you,

George

Blasphemy!

RG, go slither back down the sede hole from which you recently crawled.

simple Faith wrote:RG, go slither back down the sede hole from which you recently crawled.

Heyyy !! Change your name to plain SIMPLE! you moron lol. Did I rattle your little your Novus Ordu cage you ??

Since this forum has its own sub-forum for sede’s to justify their schism and sell their strange wares (thankfully quiet), why is it we can only attract the bottom-feeders who just can’t seem to control their emotions as they malign the “anti-pope’s” with the knee-jerk gusto of someone who is not at all concerned with his eternal salvation, but only with smearing the "anti-pope", as if that in itself will earn them favor with God?

Not even the genuine prayers of a dying man recognized universally as God's true Vicar can move this particular class of men to silence; they are compelled to react with mockery and disdain. It’s in their sick-fevered blood, and it’s how we know this class of men who give sede's a bad name.

MRyan wrote:Since this forum has its own sub-forum for sede’s to justify their schism and sell their strange wares (thankfully quiet), why is it we can only attract the bottom-feeders who just can’t seem to control their emotions as they malign the “anti-pope’s” with the knee-jerk gusto of someone who is not at all concerned with his eternal salvation, but only with smearing the "anti-pope", as if that in itself will earn them favor with God?

Not even the genuine prayers of a dying man recognized universally as God's true Vicar can move this particular class of men to silence; they are compelled to react with mockery and disdain. It’s in their sick-fevered blood, and it’s how we know this class of men who give sede's a bad name.

Probably because it makes a certain 'class of people' that are beneath certain peoples contempt nauseous is my guess and don't see your 'Vicar of Christ' as the actual Vicar of Christ.. understand yet?

What you mean to say, RG, is that you hold the entire "Novus Ordu church" and its visible Vicars in utter contempt - they make you nauseous with their false heretical faith, false bishops, invalid rites and their fawning "communion" with an apostate "anti-pope", blah, blah, blah, blah.

This mocking disdain seeps out every pore of your callous, caustic and irreverent body. What we hold in "contempt" is the arrogant and vile spewing of a man who dares to mock the prayers of a dying pope. This man has no class, no honor, no integrity, and he certainly has not the heart of a Catholic.

And look at you taking umbrage (poor boy) and feigning some hurtful wound to your delicate persona because you're outlandish behavior isn't applauded or "understood".

There's the door, or the hole, which ever you prefer.

MRyan wrote:What you mean to say, RG, is that you hold the entire "Novus Ordu church" and its visible Vicars in utter contempt - they make you nauseous with their false heretical faith, false bishops, invalid rites and their fawning "communion" with an apostate "anti-pope", blah, blah, blah, blah.

This mocking disdain seeps out every pore of your callous, caustic and irreverent body. What we hold in "contempt" is the arrogant and vile spewing of a man who dares to mock the prayers of a dying pope. This man has no class, no honor, no integrity, and he certainly has not the heart of a Catholic.

And look at you taking umbrage (poor boy) and feigning some hurtful wound to your delicate persona because you're outlandish behavior isn't applauded or "understood".

There's the door, or the hole, which ever you prefer.

Take the hole! Im not mocking anyone, it is directed at you !

Such adjectives you use Mike, very descriptive, you word master, am I intimidated though? Nah maybe I am all of those things, but hey your the one that calls them. You are reduced to name calling now? I rest my case.

Lionel wrote:

Ecclesia Militans wrotel:

On the other hand, I present you a short list of those important documents, theologians, bishops and doctors that explicitly affirmed the threefold Baptism (most of the quotes are found in the article mentioned in my last comment, if you wish, I can send you the others by mail):

St. Cyprian BM, Tertullian, St. Cyril of Jerusalem BCD, St. John Chrysostome BCD, St. Ambrose BCD, St. Augustine BCD, St. Thomas Aquinas CD, St. Catherine of Sienna V, Ecumenical Council of Trent, Catechism of the Council of Trent, St. Alphonsus Liguori BCD, Pope Pius IX, Baltimore Cathechism (19th century), The Cathechism Explained (1899), Cathechism of Pope St. Pius X, Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), Code of Canon Law (1917), Catholic Dictionary (1946), Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office (1949),

(He is implying that they all were referring to an explicit, visible baptism of desire. If they were not explicit and visible how could they be exceptions to the dogma?)

And that is the problem with your flawed thesis, for you admit throughout that it is only “implied” that “they all were referring to an explicit, visible baptism of desire.”

And I say they “implied” no such thing. It is the same as saying that the Church (Lumen Gentium 16) considers a Catechumen of good faith who intends to enter the Church already as one of her own, without passing “judgment” on his soul, no more than we can pass judgment on the soul of any baptized adult Catholic. If the Catechumen or a baptized Catholic were to die, both would receive a Christian burial in the hope that both possessed the proper dispositions for justification/salvation. If so, both would be saved in the bosom of the Church.

You said the dogma was all about “salvation”, yet you carry on as if the dogma is all about an visible material membership -- as if this is THE intrinsic component of the salvation dogma, rather than that of a justifying faith which is effected by the laver of regeneration, or “the desire for it” (charity/contrition/intention), and results in regeneration and salvation should some obstacle prevent actual sacramental ablution or external membership in the Church.

Pope Leo XIII did not declare that the sacraments were the only means of sanctification, he said, rather, "in man, nothing is more internal than heavenly grace which begets sanctity, but the ordinary and chief means of obtaining grace are external: that is to say, the sacraments". And this is precisely why Pope Pius XII could teach, with the Doctors and Tradition, "An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism".

Since, as St. Thomas teaches, baptism of blood and baptism of desire form an integral part of the "one Baptism", and do not destroy its singular integrity, they are not "exceptions" to that which is intrinsic to the salvation dogma, but only to the divine precepts that are extrinsically necessary as necessity of means (the institutional Church and the Sacraments).

Nowhere does this correct teaching by the Church on the salvation dogmas “imply” an “explicit, visible baptism of desire”, except, for example, in the case of the Catechumen who makes his intentions known. His actual salvation, however, is no more “explicit and visible” than that of a baptized adult Catholic.

Again, baptism of blood and baptism of desire are NOT “exceptions” to the salvation dogma, they are exceptions to the divine precept that calls and obligates every man to become external members of the One true Church of Christ – and serve only as “exceptions” when this divine precept cannot be fulfilled. They are known only to God, but so too is the salvation of all Baptized Catholics (excluding infants and canonized martyrs, to include unbaptized martyrs).

Lionel wrote:

In this list it is important to note that none of them said that the baptism of desire and the baptism of blood were explicitly known to us or that we could judge these cases in general or that they were explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Please demonstrate where the sanctification and salvation of a baptized adult can be “explicitly known to us or that we could judge these cases in general”.

And, how you can post one post after another with the same flawed theme that says the saints, Doctors and the Church are "implying" that they are "referring to an explicit, visible baptism of desire”, when they "imply" no such thing?

Ahh Just realised whats this about. Benedict is dead. May God have mercy on the man's soul Amen.

And that is the problem with your flawed thesis, for you admit throughout that it is only “implied” that “they all were referring to an explicit, visible baptism of desire.”

Lionel:
Yes it is implied that the baptism of desire is explicit and visible -otherwise how could it be an exception.
They assume that it is visible and known, and so it contradicts the literal interpretation of the dogma.


And I say they “implied” no such thing. It is the same as saying that the Church (Lumen Gentium 16) considers a Catechumen of good faith who intends to enter the Church already as one of her own, without passing “judgment” on his soul,

Lionel:
Is this accepted only in principle, in faith or is it assumed to be known defacto in the present time?

If it is only accepted in principle it is irrelevant to the dogma.It is not an exception.
If it is implied that we know these cases in 2013 and so they are an exception to the traditional dogma then it is irrational.Since we do not know any such case in real life, it cannot be an exception.


no more than we can pass judgment on the soul of any baptized adult Catholic. If the Catechumen or a baptized Catholic were to die, both would receive a Christian burial in the hope that both possessed the proper dispositions for justification/salvation. If so, both would be saved in the bosom of the Church.

Lionel:
The issue is can we see these cases with our simple naked eye. Can we meet these people.This is relevant for the dogma.
What you have mentioned above is the usual theology.


You said the dogma was all about “salvation”, yet you carry on as if the dogma is all about an visible material membership -- as if this is THE intrinsic component of the salvation dogma, rather than that of a justifying faith which is effected by the laver of regeneration, or “the desire for it” (charity/contrition/intention), and results in regeneration and salvation should some obstacle prevent actual sacramental ablution or external membership in the Church.

Lionel:
The issue is not justification and salvation and other theology.
Your following paragraphs are also theology and valid in themself.
I agree that the baptism of water is needed for salvation and all who are in Heaven are Catholics.

Lionel wrote:
The issue is not justification and salvation and other theology.

So if the issue (the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus) is not salvation, then what is it?

And, when you say the issue is neither "salvation" nor "other theology" (e.g, the theology of baptism of blood and baptism of desire), then the issue can only be the extrinsic necessity of means pertaining to the fulfillment of a divine precept, which, you say, has nothing to do with salvation.

Excuse me if I can make no sense of this whatsoever.

The issue is not justification and salvation and other theology.

Lionel

Theologically you can discuss the dogma with reference to justification and salvation. Often it has been discussed if the baptism of desire results in justification or salvation.

The point here is that the baptism of desire is irrelevent to the dogma. Since we do not know any case which could be an exception to every one needing to enter the Church for salvation, which is the message of the dogma.

So if you say the baptism of desire results in justification only, it still means, every one needs to convert into the Church in 2013 for salvation and there are no exceptions.
If you say the baptism of desire results in salvation, it still means, every one needs to convert into the Catholic Church in 2013 for salvation and there are no exceptions.

Lionel,

In some ways I think what you are trying to say is that the Church should always and in every situation teach the necessity of Baptism by water with no exceptions. The Church fully recognizes the possibilities of Baptism by Blood, Baptism of Desire and Invincible Ignorance and places these situations in the loving hands of God and known to God alone as Church teaching, that must be believed by all. The Church has been very clear on this through the ages. Since the Church can not and will not predict a persons salvation or damnation it is always proper and fitting in every and all cases to teach NSOCC and Baptism by water. Too many in teaching authority have forgot or reduced the clear teaching mission of the Church to some multiple choice catechesis which misleads and confuses both Catholics and non Catholics. Teach the faith and leave the mercies to God. Vatican Council II as you have said and rightfully so is in complete continuity with past councils on Church teaching.


Not too long ago... Who said this and when was it said?

Nor are we here primarily to discuss certain fundamentals of Catholic doctrine, or to restate in greater detail the traditional teaching of the Fathers and of early and more recent theologians. We presume that these things are sufficiently well known and familiar to you all.



There was no need to call a council merely to hold discussions of that nature. What is needed at the present time is a new enthusiasm, a new joy and serenity of mind in the unreserved acceptance by all of the entire Christian faith, without forfeiting that accuracy and precision in its presentation which characterized the proceedings of the Council of Trent and the First Vatican Council. What is needed, and what everyone imbued with a truly Christian, Catholic and apostolic spirit craves today, is that this doctrine shall be more widely known, more deeply understood, and more penetrating in its effects on men's moral lives. What is needed is that this certain and immutable doctrine, to which the faithful owe obedience, be studied afresh and reformulated in contemporary terms. For this deposit of faith, or truths which are contained in our time-honored teaching is one thing; the manner in which these truths are set forth (with their meaning preserved intact) is something else.

This, then, is what will require our careful, and perhaps too our patient, consideration. We must work out ways and means of expounding these truths in a manner more consistent with a predominantly pastoral view of the Church's teaching office.

JMJ,


George