Bishop Frederick Henry of Calgary Responds:SSPX

BISHOP FREDERICK HENRY OF CALGARY,CANADA RESPONDS: SSPX
I sent this blog post to Bishop Frederick Henry of Calgary,Canada.
CALGARY BISHOP DECLARES SSPX AS 'NOT CATHOLICS'
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/01/calgary-archbishop-declares-sspx-as-not.html#links

He has responded :

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

845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son's Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is "the world reconciled." She is that bark which "in the full sail of the Lord's cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world." According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah's ark, which alone saves from the flood.334 (30, 953, 1219)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is an enquiry e-mail via http://www.calgarydiocese.ca/ from:
Lionel Andrades
lionelandrades10@gmail.com
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
CALGARY BISHOP DECLARES SSPX AS 'NOT CATHOLICS'
I have been in communication with the Inter Religious Dialogue and Ecumenism representative in the diocese of Calgary,Canada.There is a new Director now.

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

How can they be exceptions when we do not know a single such case in 2013.

She is rejecting the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with alleged exceptions and of course the diocese of Calgary would consider itself Catholic!

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

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

Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation and the Diocese of Calgary policy on this issue is :No some do not. They are known to us with the baptism of desire, invincible ignorance etc.
-Lionel Andrades
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/01/calgary-archbishop-declares-sspx-as-not.html#links
_______________________________________

Dear Bishop Frederick.B Henry,
Praised be Jesus and Our Lady.

The quotations you have cited do not contradict the literal intrerpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nor Ad Gentes 7 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VI. The Necessity of Baptism
1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.(129, 161, 846)
(There could be a non Catholic saved without the Sacrament of baoptism and this would be known only to God.Since we do not know any such case in 2013 this is not an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus).
1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.(2473)
(Similalry only Jesus can judge who has the baptism of desire who is really a martyr. So this cannot be an exception.)
1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.(1249)
(The baptism of desire is irrelevant to the dogma. It is a possibility but it is not an exception to the dogma)
1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity. (848)
(A person can be saved in invincible ignorance. This is a possibility but it cannot be an exception. Otherwise it would be implying that we can see the dead-saved.)
1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism. (1257, 1250)
(We leave children to the mercy of God. We agree here).
In Christ
Lionel Andrades
Catholic Layman in Rome.

Lionel wrote:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? 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)

It does not contradict Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus because the dogma is not understood by the Church as you portend, for yours is a private exclusivist interpretation that refuses to recognize that the dogma does not exclude from salvation those who are united to the Church in the bonds of faith and charity (in voto). That we cannot see the salvation of anyone in sanctifying grace is absolutely irrelevant to the true dogma itself.

Your blindness to the truth, Lionel, is driven by disobedience to the living authentic Magisterium, and a refusal to be moderated by the same.

As such, you hold that “Whether they who accept the baptism of desire [as it is taught by the Magisterium and by a universal moral consensus of theologian] or reject it, it is irrelevant. Since these cases are not known and so are not exceptions to.”

So, you allege, the doctrine of the Church on the salvation of souls who possess the true faith and clearly desire to enter the Church, and, in the case of the faith-filled catechumen, who is already considered by the Church as one of her own, who dies before he can receive the sacrament, is absolutely irrelevant to the dogma “outside the church there is no salvation”, for, you say, the dogma is defined and understood to mean that without visible external membership in the Church, there is no salvation.

What you do NOT understand, Lionel, is that if there IS the possibility of salvation IN the Church while remaining outside of visible external membership, as the Church teaches, then this is a direct contradiction to your exclusivist dogma that says there is NO salvation outside of visible external membership – period!

You cannot have it both ways, though you are bound and determined to do so.

So you simply pick and choose the numbered teachings of the CCC and VCII, for example, that you hold as orthodox and supportive of the exclusivist dogma of Fr. Feeney, while dismissing the very next numbered paragraph that places it into context, as being totally “irrelevant”, since those who are saved by the internal bonds of faith and charity “are not known and so are not exceptions to” to the true dogma of Fr. Feeney.

And what a vicious ever-restrictive tightening circle you run as you are locked-into your logical fallacy from which there is no escape without submission to the living authoritative Magisteium of the Church.

And here you are “correcting” Bishops and anyone who will listen on why the Holy Office should have been censored and not Fr. Feeney for denying the salvific efficacy of the baptisms of blood and desire.

All of the theological and ecclesial distinctions that are embodied in the Church’s true dogma on salvation that were explained in the 1949 Holy Office Letter and included in the teachings of VCII and its universal Catechism, are either rejected or deemed “irrelevant” by persons such as yourself who fail to heed such papal admonitions as these:

the same Sacred Congregation is convinced that the unfortunate controversy arose from the fact that the axiom, "outside the Church there is no salvation," was not correctly understood and weighed …

Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.

However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.

Private judgment, Lionel, that’s all your “dogma” amounts to.

Lionel wrote:

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

(Similalry only Jesus can judge who has the baptism of desire who is really a martyr. So this cannot be an exception.)

On the contrary, the Church herself has judged such cases, which is why, as tradition holds, such non-Baptized martyrs are included in the Roman Martyrology.

And such cases are in fact “exceptions” to the divine precept that commands all men to be baptized in water and the Spirit, but are NOT exceptions to the divine intrinsic necessity of internal regeneration (re-birth) into Christ ("as it is written"), by the laver of regeneration, or the desire for it; and in fact, as St. Thomas teaches:

The other two Baptisms are included in the Baptism of Water, which derives its efficacy, both from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost. Consequently for this reason the unity of Baptism is not destroyed. (ST, III, Q. 66, Art. 11, ad 1)

The shedding of blood is not in the nature of a Baptism if it be without charity. Hence it is clear that the Baptism of Blood includes the Baptism of the Spirit, but not conversely. And from this it is proved to be more perfect. (ST, III, Q. 66, Art. 12, ad 2)

Again:

this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church. (http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdffeeny.htm)

Lionel,
You must realize that Mike is using the exact same argument as you only in reverse. That's why you and he both are in contradiction to the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

In Mike's world (and in the world of the Modernist), the Church has no visible boundary. She is a body with no disconnecting point that separates her from all other bodies existing on earth. She is like an out of focus nebulous mass of human life which defies definition both in expression and in the concrete reality of her actual existence.

In such a church as this, there is no one at all existing who could not in some way be considered a member of this church. This church could never be the “Church Militant” because if she were militant and engaging in battle against her enemies, she could -in this false construction- be fighting against her own self because those very enemies could actually be part of her, as in, being joined to her by bonds of faith and charity though remaining outside of her visible structure. This conflict within a true corporate Church could not be possible (A house divided against itself, that house cannot stand. Mark 3:25) but would be possible only within Mike's disembodied church where the disembodied members (in their invincible ignorance) would be the only combatants. This disembodied church cannot possibly be the true Church.

The “soul of the Church” we are told of late, exists outside the visible structure of the body, but of course this too is impossible; It's the soul which gives life to the body; a member cut off from a body is also cut off from the soul of that body; it withers away and dies. The soul could no more animate a non-physical member of the body than the physical member could remain alive without the soul. When modern "theologians" such as Mike, divorce themselves from common sense and reason, the results are what we are now witnessing to... Utter confusion and unresolvable contradiction.

But let me prove further how absurd this theology really is and how it fails to work in practice even for those who are contaminated with it.

Mike believes in these non-corporal members of the Church -those alleged to be joined to her by bonds of faith and charity- those who can never be known to us but known to God alone. The fact that they cannot be known to us, means, that every single person alive on earth is a possible member of this church at least in votum, and because we cannot discern who is, and who is not such a member, we cannot (by the rules of this church) consider anyone as being a non-member (at least in votum). So when someone such as Mike begins to hurl anathemas upon certain members of this nebulous construction as being outside the church, he inevitably -by that act- destroys his own argument, and with it, his own make-believe church. In other words, he's caught out in his own lie; a lie which he himself -in practice- can't even believe. For how could any individual "member" consider anyone to be a non-member when non-members are known only to God? Such a person would be making judgments far above his station, popes included.

Charity would dictate that everyone must be considered a member of this church and treated as such. In Fact in practice we already can see this, with Communion being administered to non-Catholics, the Jews being included with those abiding in the covenant of God, even while remaining in their perfidy and their worship of the devil, and with the impromtu canonizations of Protestant "myrtrs." Universal Salvationism is the only non-contradictory position one can hold in such a church even despite this belief being in contradiction to every dogma of the Catholic Faith.

Mike, I said earlier that your hypocrisy was amusing, but really, it is more sad than amusing because even by the rules of your own church you could have given the benefit of non-corporal membership to "yours truly," but instead you anathematized where, by the very rules of your church, no anathema was possible; thus you expose yourself at the very least to the charge of being uncharitable.
Sad too because your own heresy is the same heresy of the numerous Protestant sects, who like you, believe in a Christian body (which is actually devoid of a body) which is a loose structure of sorts with no defining boundary, for, as they would have it, the Lord did not institute such a structured Church. Interestingly, the only group who are anathematized from those Protestant non-institutional churches are those who believe in an institutional Church, I.e, Roman Catholics. Likewise, (and even more interestingly), those anathematized in your church Mike, are those who refuse to believe in the same Protestant, non-structured, nebulous church.

Even though I (as a member of the True Church of Christ) have not the liberty of considering everyone a member, but only those who have entered through Baptism and hold to every known article of faith, I nevertheless make distinctions between formal and material heretics and in consideration of the numerous victims of diabolical disorientation I would (to err on the side of charity) not venture beyond the verdict of material heresy in any individual case, yourself included.

Lionel,
Like I said at the beginning of this post, “You must realize that Mike is using the exact same argument as you only in a reverse." That's why you and he both are in contradiction to the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus,” and I'll explain why it is that your position is also contradictory to the dogma:

You hold that in principle we can believe that there could be non-baptized members of the Church in heaven known only to God. If it is found that there are in fact such non-baptized members in heaven (and we will know one day for sure God willing), then these would be obvious contradictions to the dogma. The truth is, the dogma excludes there being any such members, even such as those known only to God. It was not man who said that outside the Church there is no salvation. It was not man who said that Baptism was absolutely necessary for salvation; it was the Lord Himself who revealed these things to His Church and He can neither deceive nor be deceived.

columba wrote:
In Mike's world (and in the world of the Modernist), the Church has no visible boundary. She is a body with no disconnecting point that separates her from all other bodies existing on earth. She is like an out of focus nebulous mass of human life which defies definition both in expression and in the concrete reality of her actual existence.

Lie no. 1.

columba wrote:In such a church as this, there is no one at all existing who could not in some way be considered a member of this church.

Lie no. 2.

columba wrote:This church could never be the “Church Militant” because if she were militant and engaging in battle against her enemies, she could -in this false construction- be fighting against her own self because those very enemies could actually be part of her, as in, being joined to her by bonds of faith and charity though remaining outside of her visible structure. This conflict within a true corporate Church could not be possible (A house divided against itself, that house cannot stand. Mark 3:25) but would be possible only within Mike's disembodied church where the disembodied members (in their invincible ignorance) would be the only combatants. This disembodied church cannot possibly be the true Church.

Lie no. 3.

columba wrote:The “soul of the Church” we are told of late, exists outside the visible structure of the body, but of course this too is impossible;

Lie no. 4.

The Soul of the Church is the Holy Ghost, who can animate whomever He so pleases outside of the visible confines of the Church, but never apart from this same Mystical Body, from whence all graces flow.

columba wrote: It's the soul which gives life to the body; a member cut off from a body is also cut off from the soul of that body; it withers away and dies.

Yes, the fate of all obstinate heretics.

columba wrote: The soul could no more animate a non-physical member of the body than the physical member could remain alive without the soul.

Lie no. 5.

The Soul of the Church is the Holy Ghost, who can animate whomever He so pleases outside of the visible confines of the Church, but never apart from this same Mystical Body, from whence all graces flow.

columba wrote: When modern "theologians" such as Mike, divorce themselves from common sense and reason, the results are what we are now witnessing to... Utter confusion and unresolvable contradiction.

When heretics such as columba divorce themselves from the Magisterium, they end up denying dogmas of the faith, and end up accusing the Doctors and the Church herself of heresy. Every single schismatic invents a heresy to justify his schism.

columba wrote:But let me prove further how absurd this theology really is and how it fails to work in practice even for those who are contaminated with it.

Mike believes in these non-corporal members of the Church -those alleged to be joined to her by bonds of faith and charity- those who can never be known to us but known to God alone. The fact that they cannot be known to us, means, that every single person alive on earth is a possible member of this church at least in votum, and because we cannot discern who is, and who is not such a member, we cannot (by the rules of this church) consider anyone as being a non-member (at least in votum).

Every person alive today has the potential of being united to the Church, for God wills the salvation of all men. "But [more] 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." (LG 16)

columba wrote: So when someone such as Mike begins to hurl anathemas upon certain members of this nebulous construction as being outside the church, he inevitably -by that act- destroys his own argument, and with it, his own make-believe church.

Note well how columba does not "care" that he has been accused of heresy, but now can't seem to let it go. He can dish it out, but he can't take it, let alone respond to the charge without confirming his heresy.

columba wrote:
In other words, he's caught out in his own lie; a lie which he himself -in practice- can't even believe. For how could any individual "member" consider anyone to be a non-member when non-members are known only to God? Such a person would be making judgments far above his station, popes included.

No matter what the Magisterium and the Doctors teach, Columba simply will not consider the truth that someone can actually be saved with only the internal bonds of faith and charity, so he ends up falling into at least three heresies by claiming that (1) no one can be or ever was sanctified without actual sacramental ablution, and (2), the justice of the OT saints was derived from the future merits of Christ for the remission of their sins, to the exclusion of sanctifying grace and supernatural charity. Columba holds that the OT just lived the life of divine prevenient grace, which is another way of saying "the life of divine grace".

It follows that columba denies (heresy #3) that the OT just received, with the remission of sins, the supernatural virtue of charity. As such, he stands under the same condemnation as Baius for teaching that charity was not always joined to the remission of sins.

Heresy, we know thy name.

columba wrote:
Charity would dictate that everyone must be considered a member of this church and treated as such.

Lie no. 6.

columba wrote: In Fact in practice we already can see this, with Communion being administered to non-Catholics, the Jews being included with those abiding in the covenant of God, even while remaining in their perfidy and their worship of the devil, and with the impromtu canonizations of Protestant "myrtrs." Universal Salvationism is the only non-contradictory position one can hold in such a church even despite this belief being in contradiction to every dogma of the Catholic Faith.

Lie no. 7.

columba wrote:Mike, I said earlier that your hypocrisy was amusing, but really, it is more sad than amusing because even by the rules of your own church you could have given the benefit of non-corporal membership to "yours truly," but instead you anathematized where, by the very rules of your church, no anathema was possible; thus you expose yourself at the very least to the charge of being uncharitable.

By the rules of my Church, until otherwise proven to the contrary, I can hold you as a heretic to be avoided.

columba wrote:
Sad too because your own heresy is the same heresy of the numerous Protestant sects, who like you, believe in a Christian body (which is actually devoid of a body) which is a loose structure of sorts with no defining boundary, for, as they would have it, the Lord did not institute such a structured Church. Interestingly, the only group who are anathematized from those Protestant non-institutional churches are those who believe in an institutional Church, I.e, Roman Catholics. Likewise, (and even more interestingly), those anathematized in your church Mike, are those who refuse to believe in the same Protestant, non-structured, nebulous church.

Lie no. 8.

columba wrote:Even though I (as a member of the True Church of Christ)

Lie no. 9.

columba wrote:
Even though I ... have not the liberty of considering everyone a member, but only those who have entered through Baptism and hold to every known article of faith, I nevertheless make distinctions between formal and material heretics and in consideration of the numerous victims of diabolical disorientation I would (to err on the side of charity) not venture beyond the verdict of material heresy in any individual case, yourself included.

You have already accused St. Thomas Aquinas and the Roman Catholic Church of heresy for teaching the baptisms of blood and desire, so your meaningless distinction between material and formal heresy is irrelevant. There is no such thing as "material" heresy when it comes to the universal, living and authentic Magisterium of the Church.

If the Church is in heresy, as you allege, then she is not the spotless Bride of Christ, and you can stop this spectacle of pretense.

I have identified three heresies that you hold and, given your responses to the first, I am holding you responsible for this heresy, which is a word for word denial of Trent, Session 6, Canon XI. Your attempt at explaining away your heresy only dragged you down deeper into your heretical quagmire.

Confirmation of your obstinacy in holding heresy no. 3 cannot be far behind.

Your appeal that I should at least place you in the category of "the numerous victims of diabolical disorientation", as I normally would, falls on deaf ears, for we must remember who we are dealing with, the self-professed arbiter of truth and tradition who does not hesitate to accuse the Doctors and the Church of heresy, and thus, who has absolutely no excuse for denying a dogmatic truth, "as it is written".

As with all heretics, I will pray for you, and pray for your return.

Lionel, Jehanne, Columba,

After reading the last several posts, perhaps the following links, may be of help in these dicussions:


What "No Salvation Outside the Church" Means | Catholic Answers
"Outside the Church there is no salvation" (Extra ecclesiam nulla salus). ... Since Jesus established the Catholic Church as necessary for salvation, ...
www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/what-no-salvation... - Cached

No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church?
Is There No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church? A discussion of the statements of the early Christians.
www.christian-history.org/salvation-outside-the-catholic... - Cached

Without the Church There Is No Salvation - Catholic Education ...
All salvation comes through Jesus ... of the Catholic Church (no. 776) ... phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus as "Outside the Church there is no salvation."
www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0043.html - Cached


JMJ,


George

BISHOP FREDERICK HENRY AND THE SSPX INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II AS BREAK WITH THE PAST : THEY ASSUME THE DEAD ARE VISIBLE AS DID THE ARCHBISHOP OF BOSTON RICHARD CUSHING

The Archbishop of Boston was in heresy for denying 'the infallible statement' with allegedly being able to see the dead saved who did not have to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation. He contradicted the centuries old dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Similarly when Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre says there could be a Hindu in Tibet saved in his religion, through Jesus and the Church,he is referring to a possibility. This is acceptable since implicit to us salvation, as in the case of the Hindu in Tibet, can only be accepted in principle.These cases can never be known personally. HoweverThe Society of St.Pius (SSPX) has always assumed that this case of the Hindu in Tibet was known in the present times and so an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is the same heresy as Archbishop Richard Cushing .

There are no known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus and those saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance are known only to God.So if Fr.Leonard Feeney rejected the baptism of desire as being an explicit exception he was correct.

Bishop Federick Henry of Calgary,Canada has also misinterpreted the Catechism of the Catholic Church like many Catholics.The Catechism of the Catholic Church does not state that invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or to Ad Gentes 7 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.So when he implies that invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are exceptions, he makes the same error as the Archbishop of Boston.

Without his misinterpretation, the Catechism and Vatican Council II, is in agreement with the Society of St.Pius X's position on other religions and ecumenism.

The bishop is in heresy for firstly denying the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and then assuming that Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church is a break with the extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors; a break with the past.

Archbishop Gerhard Muller has said that those who interpret Vatican Council II as a break with the past are heretical.He referred to progressives and traditionalists.In this case Bishop Frederick Henry and the SSPX are interpreting the Council II as a break with the past.They both assume that the dead saved are visible to us and so are an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Archbishop Gerhard Muller,Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican has got it right!
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/12/archbishop-gerhard-mullerprefect-of.html#links

ARCHBISHOP,CATHOLIC PRIESTS AND LAY APOLOGIST SAY VATICAN COUNCIL II DOES NOT CONTRADICT THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS AND THE SYLLABUS OF ERRORS : "We don't know any case of the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance.Only Jesus can judge"

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/archbishopcatholic-priests-and-lay.html#links

I found this to be another very informative link from Father Hardon for review:


www.therealpresence.org/archives/Church_Dogma/Church_Dogma_032.htm


JMJ,


George

Columba
You hold that in principle we can believe that there could be non-baptized members of the Church in heaven known only to God.

Lionel:
Yes Columba, only in principle we can believe that there could be non baptized members of the Church in heaven. ( I personally believe that all who are in Heaven are Catholics and baptized with water).

When the Church says in CCC 1257 that God is not limited to the Sacraments it is referring to something accepted only in principle, something accepted in faith,theoretical. This is not a fact for us, in the sense that it is not a reality we can see or know. When we are in Heaven we will know it for a fact but not now.

So when CCC 1257 says God is not limited to the Sacraments it does not contradict itself when it also says that the Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water. This part of CCC 1257 is in agreement with the dogma and Fr.Leonard Feeney and John 3:5.

When I say that I personally believe that all who are in Heaven are Catholics this is a faith statement,something I believe in principle since the ordinary means of salvation for all is Catholic Faith and the baptism of water (AG 7 etc).

So if someone says that God is not limited to the Sacraments and someone else says that it is possible that all who are in Heaven are baptized-with- water Catholics, these are both dejure(in principle ) statements. Something still hypothetical for us and explicit only for God. So it does not contradict the dogma either way. The dogma says all need to be visible members of the Church (defacto). All need to convert.One can only convert with the baptism of water and Catholic Faith.

So if one says theoretically that there are non baptized persons in Heaven he does not know this for a fact, in reality and so it does not contradict the dogma which says all need to convert into the Church for salvation in the present times.

What is theoretical does not contradict the practical, i.e all in 2013 need to convert into the Church for salvation.

Lionel Andrades wrote:
Yes Columba, only in principle we can believe that there could be non baptized members of the Church in heaven. ( I personally believe that all who are in Heaven are Catholics and baptized with water).

Lionel,
I take a different view. We cannot hold in principle that there are non baptized members of the Church in heaven because if we do we would have to hold in principle that the Truth could err when He satated, "Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Lionel Andrades wrote:
When the Church says in CCC 1257 that God is not limited to the Sacraments it is referring to something accepted only in principle, something accepted in faith,theoretical. This is not a fact for us, in the sense that it is not a reality we can see or know. When we are in Heaven we will know it for a fact but not now.

That God is not bound by His sacraments is not an "in principle only" teaching; it is a de fide fact; a truth of the faith. We know that God can work outside the sacrament of confession and forgive the mortal sins of those who repent with perfect contrition as long as they intend to receive the sacrament at the next reasonable opportunity.
We know that God will still impart grace to those who do not receive the Eucharist through no fault of their own but will to receive it. We know that the gifts of the Holy Ghost can be given outside the sacrament of Confirmation.

Yes. God is not bound by His sacraments but we are told that the sacraments are necessary for salvation though not all the sacraments need be received by all, therefore at least one sacrament must of necessity be received by all; That sacrament has to be Baptism, because without it, it is impossible to receive any other sacrament.; therefore, Baptism is necessary for all.

Why the CCC placed that statement about "God not being bound by the sacraments" right beside the teaching on Baptism is a mystery indeed. The only plausible reason is that it was placed there to confuse and add weight to the erroneus teaching therein on baptism of desire, leaving the impression on the reader that Baptism could be optional. Scandalous if you ak me.

Lionel Andrades wrote:
So when CCC 1257 says God is not limited to the Sacraments it does not contradict itself when it also says that the Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water. This part of CCC 1257 is in agreement with the dogma and Fr.Leonard Feeney and John 3:5.

Yes. The CCC goes out of its way to make it appear that it is not contradicting itself but for the reader who believes that he's receiving orthodox Catholic teaching and trusts this book to be the correct standard of the Faith, he comes away with doubt in the necessity of sacramental Baptism for salvation. Again, scandalous.

Lionel Andrades wrote:
When I say that I personally believe that all who are in Heaven are Catholics this is a faith statement,something I believe in principle since the ordinary means of salvation for all is Catholic Faith and the baptism of water (AG 7 etc).

Lionel, it is a dogmatic teaching, an irrefutable fact of the Faith, that everyone who is in heaven is a member of the Catholic Church. Baptism is not the ordinary means; it is the only means of entering the Catholic Church and therefore the only means of entering heaven.

Lionel Andrades wrote:
So if someone says that God is not limited to the Sacraments and someone else says that it is possible that all who are in Heaven are baptized-with- water Catholics, these are both dejure(in principle ) statements. Something still hypothetical for us and explicit only for God. So it does not contradict the dogma either way. The dogma says all need to be visible members of the Church (defacto). All need to convert.One can only convert with the baptism of water and Catholic Faith.

We can be certain that there is no principle whereby we can believe -since the institution of the sacrament- that God saves apart from sacramental Baptism. If ever it be discovered that there is even a single soul in heaven who got there without sacramental Baptism we would have to admit that this case was contrary to dogma and so, the dogma was false all along. What follows from that is that the Church could, and did, teach error. Not only that; we would have to say also that Christ Himself was in error when he proclaimed that without the regeneration in water a man cannot enter the kingdom of God. The choice seems to be between the falible CCC or the infalible word of God.

Lionel Andrades wrote:
So if one says theoretically that there are non baptized persons in Heaven he does not know this for a fact, in reality and so it does not contradict the dogma which says all need to convert into the Church for salvation in the present times.

What is theoretical does not contradict the practical, i.e all in 2013 need to convert into the Church for salvation.

But if one holds that it is indeed possible -in theory- that there are non baptized persons in Heaven, in doing so one does contradict the dogma.

.Lionel Andrades wrote:
Yes Columba, only in principle we can believe that there could be non baptized members of the Church in heaven. ( I personally believe that all who are in Heaven are Catholics and baptized with water).

Lionel,
I take a different view. We cannot hold in principle that there are non baptized members of the Church in heaven because if we do we would have to hold in principle that the Truth could err when He satated, "Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Lionel:

When we say that in principle we can accept, that God being God, there could be a non baptized person in Heaven we are referring to a possibility. It is hypothetical and not known for a fact. It is not something real. So it does not contradict the teaching " "Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

If there was somebody in Heaven without the baptism of water and he came down to earth so that we could meet him, shake his hands and talk to him then he would be an exception to the truth "Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Columba
one sacrament must of necessity be received by all; That sacrament has to be Baptism, because without it, it is impossible to receive any other sacrament.; therefore, Baptism is necessary for all.

Lionel:
Yes one Sacrament is necessary for all, it must be received by all in 2013 to go to Heaven.

We do not know any exception and cannot know any exception on earth and if there is an exception known to God we would not know and this case if it does exist would be irrelevant to us.

We do not know any one saved without the baptism of water this year or the last 100 years. So this issue is irrelevant to the dogma which says all need to convert into the Church for salvation.

If someone is saved without the Sacrament as a possibility it has no bearing on the dogmatic teaching.

For those who assume that this possibility, is real in 2013 then it would be an exception to the dogma, to the truth. Then of course it is an exception and it contradicts the truth.

So contradicting the truth does not depend on there being a case saved without the baptism of water but in assuming that this case is explicit and known to us in 2013.

Columba
Why the CCC placed that statement about "God not being bound by the sacraments" right beside the teaching on Baptism is a mystery indeed.

Lionel:
It would be a mystery and definitely contradictory if you believe that those saved without the Sacrament of Baptism are known in the present times and so since these cases are real for you, it is an existing exception.

These cases are in Heaven if they exist. If it exists it exists in Heaven only and depends on the Free Will of the Omnipotent God. Since it is a ' zero case', something non existing for us, it is not an exception on earth, for all needing the baptism of water for salvation.

Columba:
Yes. The CCC goes out of its way to make it appear that it is not contradicting itself but for the reader who believes that he's receiving orthodox Catholic teaching and trusts this book to be the correct standard of the Faith, he comes away with doubt in the necessity of sacramental Baptism for salvation. Again, scandalous.

Lionel:
It is orthodox Catholic teaching that every one on earth in the present time needs Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation. CCC 1257 says this.The Baptism of water is necessary for infants and it is given to adults with Catholic Faith.

CCC 1257 mentions the possibility of someone being saved without the baptism of water. It does not state that this is an exception. The reader may assume that this is an exception.

The reader may also assume that this is not an exception knowing that a possibility is not a known reality on earth and so does not contradict the orthodox teaching.

Columba:
Lionel, it is a dogmatic teaching, an irrefutable fact of the Faith, that everyone who is in heaven is a member of the Catholic Church. Baptism is not the ordinary means; it is the only means of entering the Catholic Church and therefore the only means of entering heaven.

Lionel:
Agreed.
And since a possibility of a non baptized person is invisible to us there are no exceptions on earth to the dogmatic teaching on which we both agree.

Columba:
We can be certain that there is no principle whereby we can believe -since the institution of the sacrament- that God saves apart from sacramental Baptism.

Lionel:
God does not save apart from the Sacraments. The Sacrament of Baptism is the ordinary way, the only way for salvation for all.

However there is still the principle of God being God and not being limited to the Sacraments.You have already mentioned some good examples above.

So presently the majority of non Catholics on earth are oriented to Hell and unless they convert before death they will go there.And if there is an exception we would not know and we cannot know. They are all oriented to Hell with Original Sin on their soul and for not receiving the baptism of water and Catholic Faith.

Even those Protestants who have the baptism of water and do not have Catholic Faith are also oriented to Hell (AG 7, Vatican Council II etc).

Columba:
If ever it be discovered that there is even a single soul in heaven who got there without sacramental Baptism we would have to admit that this case was contrary to dogma and so, the dogma was false all along.

Lionel:
If it was discovered, yes! Then it would be a fact! For now it is not a fact.It is only an assumption. Something hypothetical.So it is not contradictory.

Columba:
What follows from that is that the Church could, and did, teach error.

Lionel:
Since we, you and I, have not discovered this fact for ourself in Heaven, there are no known cases to contradict CCC 1257, when it says God is not limited to the Sacrament of Baptism. There is no error.

Columba:
Not only that; we would have to say also that Christ Himself was in error when he proclaimed that without the regeneration in water a man cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Lionel:
The error would exist if we knew for a fact that there was such a case in Heaven.

Columba:
The choice seems to be between the falible CCC or the infalible word of God.

Lionel:
There would be the choice between the 'fallible CCC' if it is assumed that the Catechism refers to a known case, known for a fact in Heaven or on earth who is saved without the baptism of water.A possibility is not an exception.
_________________________________________________________

APPEAL TO RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES IN CALGARY: ACCEPT THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS ALONG WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF IMPLICIT BAPTISM OF DESIRE
I would appeal to the religious communities in the Catholic diocese of Calgary,Canada, and also the diocesan priests and sisters there, to accept the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus along with the possibility of being saved with implicit-to-us and explicit-only -for-God ,baptism of desire and invincible ignorance.

Also please accept the Catechism of the Catholic Church without the irrationality of being able to see the dead on earth saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.For these cases to be exceptions to the dogma on salvation, they would have to be visible in Calgary, as Bishop Frederick Henry implies they are.

The bishop is in heresy for rejecting the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and suggesting that he can see the dead saved.

Since he can see the dead saved on earth, Vatican Council II is a break with the past: it is a break with the dogma and other Magisterial documents.

It is heretical to interpret Vatican Council II as a break with the past, cautioned Archbishop Gerhard Mueller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,Vatican.

Religious communities in Calgary can interpret the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II in agreement with the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.

Do not make the same error as Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston, who assumed the baptism of desire was explicitly known to us and so an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.

Please do not make a Profession of Faith , saying 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins'(Nicene Creed) and mean there are three known baptisms.There is only one known baptism, which is the baptism of water.The baptism of desire and blood are known only to God. They are not visible, able to be administered, or repeatable, like the baptism of water.

I also appeal to the Prior at the Society of St.Pius X church, St.Dennis Catholic Church,Calgary, Fr.Leo Boyle, to accept the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus without explicit-to-us baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance.I appeal to him, to interpret the Catechism of the Catholic Church without the irrationality of being able to see the dead on earth saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.I also appeal to him to clarify that there is nothing in Vatican Council II which contradicts the traditional teaching on other religions and ecumenism.Even if he does not accept Vatican Council II he could clarify that implicit salvation mentioned in Vatican Council II (LG 16 etc) is not explicit and so does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

I do not personally know Bishop Frederick Henry, and I assume that he is a good person like any other bishop, when I refer to heresy, I am referring to the Catechism of the Catholic Church's definition of heresy.-Lionel Andrades

BISHOP FREDERICK HENRY AT ODDS WITH THE CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP AND THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SACRAMENTS,VATICAN http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/01/bishop-frederick-henry-contradicts-at.html
_______________________________________________________

Lionel Andrades wrote:Do not make the same error as Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston, who assumed the baptism of desire was explicitly known to us and so an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.

No one has made this claim. If so, who? Fact is that the Catholic Church, even to the present day, has never canonized someone who did not end his/her life "in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

Padre Pio may have told some "devout Protestant" woman that she would go to Heaven, but was this woman, in fact, Protestant? Did she deny any dogmas of the Catholic Faith? If she told Padre Pio that, would he have told her what he did? If she was such a "devout Protestant", why was she meeting with a Catholic priest to begin with? It seems to me that she was more Catholic than Protestant.

Are large numbers of individuals saved via "baptism of desire" without sacramental Baptism alone? It would seem not:

2036 The authority of the Magisterium extends also to the specific precepts of the natural law, because their observance, demanded by the Creator, is necessary for salvation. In recalling the prescriptions of the natural law, the Magisterium of the Church exercises an essential part of its prophetic office of proclaiming to men what they truly are and reminding them of what they should be before God.

Most people, including most Catholics, do not observe the natural law, which is immutable:

1958 The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history; it subsists under the flux of ideas and customs and supports their progress. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. Even when it is rejected in its very principles, it cannot be destroyed or removed from the heart of man. It always rises again in the life of individuals and societies:

Theft is surely punished by your law, O Lord, and by the law that is written in the human heart, the law that iniquity itself does not efface.

1979 The natural law is immutable, permanent throughout history. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. It is a necessary foundation for the erection of moral rules and civil law.

The Holy Office letter never stated that there were "known exceptions" to salvation outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church. In fact, it stated the exact opposite:

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).

Ergo, those Catholics in full communion with the Catholic Church can have assurance of salvation, but no one else. Hence, if non-Catholics cannot be sure of their salvation, then neither can we. Consider CCC, #847:

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

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

The above is a tautology -- how could you or I ever know that something which someone else does not know was due to "no fault of their own"? Even more important, how could you or I ever know that such an individual was being "moved by grace" to "do his will"? It seems that "reading minds" would be simpler! After all, who would have ever guessed in the 1970s from watching the Brady Bunch that Robert Reed (aka, "Mr. Brady") was, in fact, gay?!

If you judge someone to be in a state of grace who is, in fact, not, then you do that person an eternal injustice. I would never presume to tell a heretic and/or schismatic, material or otherwise, that such an individual was on the path to Heaven. The Sacraments give certainty, but only to the individual receiving them and to no one else. As non-Catholic Christians only have a valid Baptism at their disposal, they lack certainty, except for infants. They can never truly know that their heresy and/or schisms are, in fact, not mortal sins. As for Jews and Muslims, the situation is even worse; the former are in a dead covenant, the latter in one which was false to begin with.