SSPX Prior at ALbano,Italy says we do not know anyone saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire

SSPX PRIOR AT ALBANO,ITALY SAYS WE DON'T KNOW ANYONE SAVED IN INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE AND THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE

Indicates that Vatican Council II does not contradict the traditional teaching on other religions.

Father Aldo Rossi agreed that implicit-for-us salvation is not physically visible and so it does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus.I spoke with Father Aldo Rossi, Prior of the Fraternita Sacerdotale San Pio X (SSPX),Albano,Italy yesterday at the SSPX chapel of St.Catherine of Siena,Roma. He had offered Holy Mass on the feast of St. John Bosco.

The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are not physically visible to us humans he said however a catechuman could be saved with the baptism of desire. It was a possibility.

Since we cannot see these cases, he agreed, they were not explicit exceptions to the dogma on salvation. The dogma says all need to convert into the Church for salvation.The dogma indicates that every one needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church to go to Heaven.It does not mention any exceptions.

There are none was Fr.Aldo Rossi's message.

Similar to two other priests from Albano, he was saying those who are saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are irrelevant to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.

It may be mentioned that on the Internet Catholics discuss if the baptism of desire results in justification only or also in salvation.Either way this is not an issue with respect to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The real issue is: is the baptism of desire explicit, is it visible for us?

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

Fr.Aldo Rossi says these cases are not an exception since they are explicit only for God.
_______________________________________________

Another SSPX priest in Rome says implicit salvation is not visible to us and is known only to God.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/01/another-sspx-priest-in-rome-says.html

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

Implicit intention, invincible ignorance and a good conscience (LG 16) in Vatican Council II do not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus –John Martigioni
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/implicit-intention-invincible-ignorance.html#links

Lionel wrote:

Father Aldo Rossi agreed that implicit-for-us salvation is not physically visible and so it does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus. I spoke with Father Aldo Rossi, Prior of the Fraternita Sacerdotale San Pio X (SSPX), Albano, Italy yesterday at the SSPX chapel of St. Catherine of Siena, Roma. He had offered Holy Mass on the feast of St. John Bosco.

The question you put to him is a straw-man, for there is no such thing as salvation that is physically visible to us. In fact, “implicit-for-us salvation” makes no sense whatsoever. This is called leading the question, Lionel, and the question is absurd. You are equating visible membership with visible salvation.

If asked if the physical salvation of Baptized adult Catholics is visible to us, the same Father Aldo Rossi would say absolutely not.

Lionel wrote:

The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are not physically visible to us humans he said however a catechuman could be saved with the baptism of desire. It was a possibility.

Lionel is simply saying that it is possible to be sanctified and saved without actual ablution, but if it happens that someone, such as the “visible-to-us” non-Baptized (and canonized) martyr, is saved without visible membership, Lionel says this is NOT an exception to the so-called dogma of NO SALVATION OUTSIDE OF VISIBLE MEMBERSHIP.

For anyone to say that non-visible salvation is NOT an exception to visible salvation/membership is irrational and illogical (not dealing from a full deck).

Lionel wrote:

Since we cannot see these cases, he agreed, they were not explicit exceptions to the dogma on salvation. The dogma says all need to convert into the Church for salvation. The dogma indicates that every one needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church to go to Heaven. It does not mention any exceptions.

Yes, it does, and it ALWAYS has been understood to mean there is no salvation outside the Church in re, or at least in voto, precisely as St. Robert Bellarmine, who provided a word-for-word definition used by Pope Pius XII for external membership in the Church, and the other Doctors and theologians have taught, and precisely as the Church teaches the same dogma today.

Understand, of course, Mike, that the only individuals whom the Church has canonized have been "card-carrying" Catholics, those who were either in re members of the Catholic Church or those who were explicitly seeking to be in re members. One need look no father than the number of individuals who were canonized by Pope John Paul II to appreciate the fact that non-Catholics, in his view, may not be in Heaven in large numbers.

So, yes, we can have infallible certainty that there are Catholics who are in Paradise.

Lionel wrote:

Lionel
Father Aldo Rossi agreed that implicit-for-us salvation is not physically visible and so it does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus. I spoke with Father Aldo Rossi, Prior of the Fraternita Sacerdotale San Pio X (SSPX), Albano, Italy yesterday at the SSPX chapel of St. Catherine of Siena, Roma. He had offered Holy Mass on the feast of St. John Bosco.

Michael:
The question you put to him is a straw-man, for there is no such thing as salvation that is physically visible to us.

Lionel:
It is commonly held (wrongly) that every one does not have to be a visible member of the Catholic Church for salvation. EWTN says every does not have to be a card carrying member. They imply that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are exceptions.
So since they are exceptions, they exist as exceptions it would mean that we can see these cases physically on earth.

The priest is saying that we cannot see these cases and they are not exceptions.

Michael:
In fact, “implicit-for-us salvation” makes no sense whatsoever. This is called leading the question, Lionel, and the question is absurd. You are equating visible membership with visible salvation.

Lionel:
Visible salvation?
There is no salvation visible to us. However the Church tells us the conditions for salvation.We accept them in faith. The Church says all need faith and baptism for salvation(AG 7). The baptism of water is visible. Catholic faith can be demonstrated.

Michael:
If asked if the physical salvation of Baptized adult Catholics is visible to us, the same Father Aldo Rossi would say absolutely not.

Lionel:Visible salvation?
Salvation is always implicit for us human beings. It is only explicit for Jesus.It is visible for him. When we go to Heaven then it could be visible for us.

Jehanne wrote:Understand, of course, Mike, that the only individuals whom the Church has canonized have been "card-carrying" Catholics, those who were either in re members of the Catholic Church or those who were explicitly seeking to be in re members. One need look no father than the number of individuals who were canonized by Pope John Paul II to appreciate the fact that non-Catholics, in his view, may not be in Heaven in large numbers.

So, yes, we can have infallible certainty that there are Catholics who are in Paradise.

No, Jehanne, a non-water baptized martyr who is recognized in the Church's liturgy/Martyrology as one of the blessed in Heaven is not a "card-carrying" Catholic; a designation applicable only to visible members of the institutional Church here on earth.

I have no problem with "there are only Catholics in Heaven", but that does NOT mean that each and every one of them has received the sacrament of Baptism, but each and every one has received its primary effects.

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:Understand, of course, Mike, that the only individuals whom the Church has canonized have been "card-carrying" Catholics, those who were either in re members of the Catholic Church or those who were explicitly seeking to be in re members. One need look no father than the number of individuals who were canonized by Pope John Paul II to appreciate the fact that non-Catholics, in his view, may not be in Heaven in large numbers.

So, yes, we can have infallible certainty that there are Catholics who are in Paradise.

No, Jehanne, a non-water baptized martyr who is recognized in the Church's liturgy/Martyrology as one of the blessed in Heaven is not a "card-carrying" Catholic; a designation applicable only to visible members of the institutional Church here on earth.

I have no problem with "there are only Catholics in Heaven", but that does NOT mean that each and every one of them has received the sacrament of Baptism, but each and every one has received its primary effects.

We can split "theological hairs" all day if we want; those martyrs, even if they ended their lives without sacramental Baptism, still died in the "bosom and unity of the Catholic Church" even if they were not in possession of the "membership ID." Once again, this is why Pope Leo X chose his words carefully:

“Where the necessity of salvation is concerned all the faithful of Christ must be subject to the Roman Pontiff, as we are taught by Holy Scripture, the testimony of the holy fathers, and by that constitution of our predecessor of happy memory, Boniface VIII, which begins Unam Sanctam.” (Lateran V Council)

All the martyrs in the Roman Martyrology, even if they died without sacramental Baptism, were part of "the faithful of Christ" and all were "subject to the Roman Pontiff."

Jehanne wrote:
All the martyrs in the Roman Martyrology, even if they died without sacramental Baptism, were part of "the faithful of Christ" and all were "subject to the Roman Pontiff."

But the Roman Pontiff does not recognize them as subjects until they receive Baptism.
I could claim till I'm blue in the face that I'm a subject of the USA but they'd kick back to Ireland if I didn't have a green card.

columba wrote:

Jehanne wrote:
All the martyrs in the Roman Martyrology, even if they died without sacramental Baptism, were part of "the faithful of Christ" and all were "subject to the Roman Pontiff."

But the Roman Pontiff does not recognize them as subjects until they receive Baptism.
I could claim till I'm blue in the face that I'm a subject of the USA but they'd kick back to Ireland if I didn't have a green card.

If they were not subject to him, then they could not receive a Mass of Christian Burial.

Lionel Andrades wrote:

Michael wrote:

Lionel Andrades wrote:
Father Aldo Rossi agreed that implicit-for-us salvation is not physically visible and so it does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus. I spoke with Father Aldo Rossi, Prior of the Fraternita Sacerdotale San Pio X (SSPX), Albano, Italy yesterday at the SSPX chapel of St. Catherine of Siena, Roma. He had offered Holy Mass on the feast of St. John Bosco.

The question you put to him is a straw-man, for there is no such thing as salvation that is physically visible to us.

It is commonly held (wrongly) that every one does not have to be a visible member of the Catholic Church for salvation.

Feenyites commonly hold (wrongly) that there is no salvation apart from visible external membership in the Church, period.

Anyone who does not understand the difference between necessity of precept and means as it is taught by the Doctors (such as Aquinas and Bellarmine) and the theologians, and as it is understood by the Church, is bound to get it wrong.

But in this case, the accusation you level against the FSSP, the SSPX or EWTN or anyone else for that matter that charges them with seeing "dead men walking" and "visible salvation" is simply absurd and accepts, falsely, as its main premise that the "dogma" is understood to mean "outside of visible external membership in the Church there is no salvation - period", when that is NOT how it is understood by the Church or the groups and individuals against whom you level your false accusation.

You have created a straw-man and spend all your time attacking a bogus understanding of an understanding of the dogma no one holds except Feeneyites.

Lionel Andrades wrote:

Michael wrote:
In fact, “implicit-for-us salvation” makes no sense whatsoever. This is called leading the question, Lionel, and the question is absurd. You are equating visible membership with visible salvation.

Visible salvation?
There is no salvation visible to us. However the Church tells us the conditions for salvation.We accept them in faith. The Church says all need faith and baptism for salvation(AG 7). The baptism of water is visible. Catholic faith can be demonstrated.

Precisely! The Catholic faith can be demonstrated, as can one's zeal (intention/desire) to enter the Church, which is why the Church accepts the faith-filled catechumen already as one of her own because, as Lumen Gentium teaches, they "are by that very intention joined with her"; and as St. Robert Bellarmine teaches, "Because catechumens, even though not in church in re (in reality), are in the church in voto (by desire), and in that way they can be saved.” (Bellarmine, De Ecclesia militante, chap 3., vol. 2, p. 76.)

And what are the conditions for salvation that we accept in faith?

We accept in faith that no one is saved outside of the Church, as the Church understands and teaches this same dogma.

We accept in faith that no one can be saved who is not regenerated into the Lord as a son of God and heir to the Kingdom.

We accept in faith that no one can be justified without faith and without the laver of regeneration, or at least the desire for it.

We accept in faith that a faith not vivified by charity is a dead faith.

We accept in faith that a state of sanctifying grace is a state of salvation for those who die in this state.

We accept in faith that the strongest bond of unity with our Lord is Charity (in fact, there is no other bond required - which presumes faith and visible incorporation, or at least the explicit or implicit desire for it), and that this internal union takes precedence over visible/physical incorporation, especially for salvation should the latter be wanting due to some unforeseen impediment.

Lionel Andrades wrote:

Michael wrote:
If asked if the physical salvation of Baptized adult Catholics is visible to us, the same Father Aldo Rossi would say absolutely not.

Visible salvation?

Yes, Lionel, that's what you are actually proposing as the "implied" belief of the FSSP, EWTN and others. It is as ridiculous as even you must realize, and it is the product of your false straw-man that assumes that the Feeneyite dogma is the dogma of the FSSP and others.

Lionel Andrades wrote:
Salvation is always implicit for us human beings. It is only explicit for Jesus.It is visible for him. When we go to Heaven then it could be visible for us.

Then why do you assume it is "visible" to the FSSP when I know for a fact they would tell you it most certainly is not?

We know why, and we know your characterization of their understanding of the dogma (as the Church understands it) is a complete straw-man.

columba wrote:

Jehanne wrote:
All the martyrs in the Roman Martyrology, even if they died without sacramental Baptism, were part of "the faithful of Christ" and all were "subject to the Roman Pontiff."

But the Roman Pontiff does not recognize them as subjects until they receive Baptism.

Subjection to the Roman Pontiff is explicit or implicit in the martyr's true faith and his desire to enter the Church. A state of grace, in other words, fulfills the requirement of being subject to the Roman Pontiff, and no one can be in a state of grace who knowingly refuses to be subject to him.

I could claim till I'm blue in the face that I'm a subject of the USA but they'd kick back to Ireland if I didn't have a green card.

Everyone is subject to the "leader of the free world", whether you know it or not, or like it or not.

I am Irish de facto, but not de jure, just as the faith-filled Catechumen is a Catholic de facto, but not de jure.

Jehanne wrote:

columba wrote:

Jehanne wrote:
All the martyrs in the Roman Martyrology, even if they died without sacramental Baptism, were part of "the faithful of Christ" and all were "subject to the Roman Pontiff."

But the Roman Pontiff does not recognize them as subjects until they receive Baptism.
I could claim till I'm blue in the face that I'm a subject of the USA but they'd kick back to Ireland if I didn't have a green card.

If they were not subject to him, then they could not receive a Mass of Christian Burial.

Correct, if they were not subject to him de facto, even if not de jure, then they could not receive a Mass of Christian Burial.

I am using de facto and de jure in their true legal sense.

MRyan wrote:
Correct, if they were not subject to him de facto, even if not de jure, then they could not receive a Mass of Christian Burial.

And the reason they did not receive a Mass of Christian Burial pre 1917 was due to the fact that they were not subjects of the Roman Pontiff. How overnight they suddenly became subjects is one of those mysteries of the hermeneutics of water vapour.

Of course the change in Church's canon law doesn't state that Christian burial is salvific or that non-baptized catechumens status changed because of the law on burial changing. The change in custom does not signify a change in belief in so far as it was not promulgated universally (affecting only the Roman Rite canon law) and therefore the infalible teaching that only the Baptized are subjects of the Roman Pontiff remains,. infalible teaching. Unless of course one wishes to argue that canon law supercedes dogmatic teaching.

Lionel wrote:

So since they [e.g., faith-filled catechumens] are exceptions, they exist as exceptions it would mean that we can see these cases physically on earth.

But they are not exceptions to the true understanding of the dogma; they are visible to us, as are their explicit faith and intention, and they are incorporated into the Church de facto, though not de jure.

Should they die with the proper dispositions before Baptism can be conferred, they will be saved by the very same intention/desire, as St. Bellarmine taught and as the Church teaches still.

Are you suggesting that The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church and Saint/Doctor Bellarmine are in error?

Are you actually suggesting that being joined to the Church de facto can save no one unless his visible communion is de jure?

Why yes, I think you are! But why you presume that everyone else accepts this as well is a great mystery!

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
Correct, if they were not subject to him de facto, even if not de jure, then they could not receive a Mass of Christian Burial.

And the reason they did not receive a Mass of Christian Burial pre 1917 was due to the fact that they were not subjects of the Roman Pontiff.

Actually, that's what I said, they were not subject to him de jure.

It was due to the fact that the Church did not want to give the impression that they were united to the Church de jure, even if objectively some of them were united to the Church de facto.

Its simply a matter of prudential emphasis, and the Church determined that this long-standing prohibition no longer served a useful purpose, and that the Church and the faithful would be better served by allowing Christan burial for the catechumen - which is now at the discretion of the local Ordinary.

The long-standing disciple against Christan burial for the catechumen was not based on any doctrine that said he could not be saved by the bonds of faith, charity and desire, as I said, it was a matter of simple discretionary emphasis so as not to make it appear that the catechumen was already a member of the Church de jure.

Read again St. Robert Bellarmine on "catechumens" who, "even though not in church in re (in reality), are in the church in voto (by desire), and in that way they can be saved"; and note well that he had no problem with the Church's discipline prohibiting Christian burial for the same.

I realize that you believe that when it comes to the salvation dogmas the Doctors of the Church were an ignorant lot who couldn't stop contradicting themselves, but you really should give them, and the Church, some credit.

That you would even think of accusing Pope St. Pius X and Benedict XV of overturning “another canon on a matter of faith or morals”; well, never mind, it is actually par for the course.

Poor ignorant popes; what were they thinking when codifying heresy?

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
Correct, if they were not subject to him de facto, even if not de jure, then they could not receive a Mass of Christian Burial.

And the reason they did not receive a Mass of Christian Burial pre 1917 was due to the fact that they were not subjects of the Roman Pontiff. How overnight they suddenly became subjects is one of those mysteries of the hermeneutics of water vapour.

Fact is, Columba, that we just don't know. Period. You can Google "YouTube Near Death Hell" to find a number of testimonies of individuals who died, went to Hell, and "lived to tell about it." Some of those experiences are wholly Catholic, others less so.

Of course, I am not saying that you should take your theology from NDEs or from other individuals' experiences. Here's what we do know:

1) Individuals whom the Catholic Church have canonized are in Heaven. The vast, vast majority of these folks have been the "card-carrying" type of Catholics. As with Dante's Divine Comedy, the number of non-baptized individuals in Paradise may be very, very small indeed, perhaps nonexistent. Baptism of Desire, even if such does not always conclude in sacramental Baptism, may be exceeding rare. Time and Eternity will tell.

2) Individuals who fail to abide by the natural law go to Hell. This is nearly everyone in our society, American and non-American, Catholic and non-Catholic. Unless "salutary repentance" is widespread, Hell will be nearly full and not empty.

3) Individuals who consciously (in most cases, culpably) refuse submission to the Roman Pontiff will go to Hell. If a non-Catholic is not in Category #2, then he/she is likely in Category #3. It is simply a denial of human free will and/or the graces of the Holy Spirit to claim that people cannot make their own choices with consequences, both temporal and eternal. No one thinks that a bank robber is "invincibly ignorant" and the same is true of any heretic and/or schismatic, once the truths of the Catholic Faith have been explained to that person.

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:Understand, of course, Mike, that the only individuals whom the Church has canonized have been "card-carrying" Catholics, those who were either in re members of the Catholic Church or those who were explicitly seeking to be in re members. One need look no father than the number of individuals who were canonized by Pope John Paul II to appreciate the fact that non-Catholics, in his view, may not be in Heaven in large numbers.

So, yes, we can have infallible certainty that there are Catholics who are in Paradise.

No, Jehanne, a non-water baptized martyr who is recognized in the Church's liturgy/Martyrology as one of the blessed in Heaven is not a "card-carrying" Catholic; a designation applicable only to visible members of the institutional Church here on earth.

I have no problem with "there are only Catholics in Heaven", but that does NOT mean that each and every one of them has received the sacrament of Baptism, but each and every one has received its primary effects.

We can split "theological hairs" all day if we want; those martyrs, even if they ended their lives without sacramental Baptism, still died in the "bosom and unity of the Catholic Church" even if they were not in possession of the "membership ID."

Jehanne, I understood what you are saying, this is true; but if I insist on precision in using the common theological language of the Church (what you call splitting "theological hairs"), it is because those who distort the true doctrines do not recognize the theological distinctions which are critical to a proper understanding.

We see this clearly in those who either reject or misunderstand means vs. precept, reality vs. desire and de facto vs. de jure.

As Chesterton observed, one false or out of place word can overturn or render meaningless a dogma.

As Chesterton observed, one false or out of place word can overturn or render meaningless a dogma.

I could think of a few such words and phrases: Invincible Ignorance, desire, the church of Christ, subsists, great religions, highest illumination, joined to Christ forever, counter syllabus, old covenant never abrogated etc etc. Put them all together and you get yourself a new church, not of Christ but of man.

PS,
Martin Luther a man of God. (just remembered that one).

columba wrote:

As Chesterton observed, one false or out of place word can overturn or render meaningless a dogma.

I could think of a few such words and phrases: Invincible Ignorance, desire, the church of Christ, subsists, great religions, highest illumination, joined to Christ forever, counter syllabus, old covenant never abrogated etc etc. Put them all together and you get yourself a new church, not of Christ but of man.

But you are only proving my point. The Church does not use such terms as "invincible ignorance", "desire", "the Church of Christ", "subsists", etc. in order to overturn her own dogmas, but to provide the faithful with her own understanding to various points of these same dogmas as she has always understood them.

Your problem, columba, is that you believe that you are the arbiter of faith and tradition, thus demonstrating that you are a Catholic de jure, and Protestant de facto.

Michael:
Feenyites commonly hold (wrongly) that there is no salvation apart from visible external membership in the Church, period.

Lionel:
This is the teaching of the dogma Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441 etc, Vatican Council II (AG 7) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846.

Michael:
Anyone who does not understand the difference between necessity of precept and means as it is taught by the Doctors (such as Aquinas and Bellarmine) and the theologians, and as it is understood by the Church, is bound to get it wrong.

Lionel:
Necessary of precept and means will be decided by God and so it has no bearing on the dogma. Every one in 2013 needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church (with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water) and we do not know any case on earth in which we can differentiate between necessity of precept or means, for it to be relevant to this issue.

Michael:
But in this case, the accusation you level against the FSSP, the SSPX or EWTN or anyone else for that matter that charges them with seeing "dead men walking" and "visible salvation" is simply absurd

Lionel:
They ,just like you, assume that the baptism of desire etc are exceptions to the dogma. It means these deceased people are visible for yuu all .Hence they are exceptions.You all can see the dead walking on the earth saved with the baptism of desire etc.