International Theological Commission (ITC) sows confusion, dissent

They have had published two papers which are available on the ITC website. In these two theological papers they have written that the Catholic Church no more teaches exclusive salvation. Since there can be those saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) etc. So there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

So when they made their Profession of Faith and took an Oath of Fidelity they recited the Nicene Constantinople Creed in which we pray ‘I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin’. However they really meant that not every one on earth needs the baptism of water for salvation. There could be known people saved in invincible ignorance etc. So in actuality there is not one baptism of water for the forgiveness of sin. There are known exceptions in the present times.

Their understanding of the Church is also different, even though in the Profession of Faith they said ‘ I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.’

Read more from Lionel Andrades

SSPX and the Vatican. Too many secrets?

The Vatican-SSPX talks were held behind closed doors. Catholics till today are not informed about what were the precise doctrinal differences. Everything is still a secret.

The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) has been asked to accept the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) position since the magisterium is always correct.

We are called to be the light of the world, the salt of the earth and not to hide our faith in a bushel basket. Yet everything was so secret and it still is.

The people just know that by next week there could be an ‘ecclesial rupture’ because the SSPX rejects the Jewish Left liberal version of Vatican Council II.

Why should we have to accept new doctrines in the name of Vatican Council II and with no supportive text in the Council?

Read more from Lionel Andrades

Vatican politics is affecting Catholic dogma, especially as it applies to the conversion of the Jews

Pope Benedict XVI in Light of the World-Conversations with Peter Seewald says Jews do not have to convert in the present times. Pope Benedict XVI says that he has revised the ancient liturgy (on Good Friday) so that it does not say that Jews need to convert in the present times but that they will convert in a future time (eschatological time).

So he is saying that he has revised the Good Friday Prayer for the Conversion of the Jews which now says Jews do not have to convert in the present times.(1) This is a rejection of the Nicene Creed in which we pray “I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin”.Jews do need the baptism of water in the present time.

The pope is saying that without the baptism of water given to adults with Catholic Faith, Jews in general, are saved in their religion.

Vatican Council II mentions the possibility of non Catholics being saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience etc. It does not state that they are saved in general in their religion. Since in general the normal means of salvation is Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.(AG 7).

The Vatican received a threat from the Chief Rabbinate and the Government of Israel over the issue of the Good Friday Prayer for the Conversion of Jews it was reported in the secular newspapers here.There was the threat of war. The pope diffused the tension with a front page report in the L’Osservatore Romano in which it was said that Jews do not have to convert in the present time.

This message was repeated in Light of the World-Conversations with Peter Seewald (Ignatius Press). The pope told Seewald that there is only one means of salvation and all who are saved are saved through Jesus.True. However this can also be a partial truth and denial of a defined dogma offensive to the Jewish Left. Offensive to the pro-Sodom and Gomorrah Zionists posing as Jews.Yes all those who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church, Jesus’ Mystical Body, however every one needs to enter the Church with the baptism of water and Catholic Faith (Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II, dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus,Dominus Iesus 20 etc).

The pope and his Curia have put away the defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which Pope Pius XII called an ‘infallible teaching’.

Read more from Lionel Andrades

Editor’s note: Let’s be fair and rational: If Jews need not convert, why should anyone else?

The Old Covenant is no more, and even if the Old Law still applied, it never had the power to save a soul. That places Jews and (non-Christian) gentiles in exactly the same position of eternal jeopardy … with the only hope for salvation being Jesus Christ and his (universal) Catholic Church.

If this is the “New Evangelization” we’re all in big, big trouble!

Monsignor Nicola Bux: The SSPX in reality, accepts Vatican Council II.

Monsignor Nicola Bux, consultant to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Office of Liturgical Celebrations of the Pope, addressed an open letter to Bishop Fellay and the priests of the Society of St. Pius X, inviting them to accept an agreement.

He wrote “Perplexities certainly remain, points to be deepened or detailed, such as those regarding ecumenism and inter religious dialogue (which has been, for that matter, already the object of an important clarification given by the declaration Dominus Iesus…’)

We know otherwise. We know the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) is in agreement with Vatican Council II which states all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation. (Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II). So in reality the SSPX agrees with Vatican Council II on ecumenism and inter religious dialogue. All non Catholics need to enter the Church with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation (to avoid Hell).

Read more from Lionel Andrades

 

International Theological Commission comes to erroneous conclusion

Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation … yet God is sovereign and all powerful … and not bound by any of the laws he makes for us … so certain exceptions remain possible.

No one but God knows precisely to whom and/or why such a merciful boon might be extended … while anyone who claims to know likely commits the grave sin of presumption.

How can an official theological commission of the Catholic Church correctly arrive at any other conclusion? Truthfully … they can’t!

Lionel Andrades explains

In the Fr.Peter C.Phan Notification was the USCCB affirming the rigorist interpretation of outside the church no salvation?

In the Notificationthe USCCB mentioned that there could be non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. We accept this in principle. Defacto, this was known only to God.The popes and Church Councils accepted it in principle that a non Catholic could be saved in invincible ignorance etc. They also knew that  these cases were known only to God. So they were not explicit exceptions to the dogmatic teaching extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Fr. Peter C. Phan outright denies the magisterial teaching on salvation and so the USCCB rightly corrected him. Even though he denies a defined dogma the USCCB however allows him to offer Holy Mass. This is contrary to Canon Law. How is a priest in public mortal sin allowed to offer Holy Mass?
Read more from Lionel Andrades

The foolish and potentially deadly presumption of expecting God to save us, on our own terms.


While God may have chosen to save someone other than Noah and his family from the great flood, we have absolutely no knowledge of any such act.

Just as the Ark was God’s chosen vessel of earthly salvation for Noah and his family, the Catholic Church is God’s chosen “vessel” of eternal salvation for all mankind.

Similarly, God may choose to “save” someone who has yet to be incorporated into the Catholic Church … but in that case as well, we will have absolutely no knowledge of it … and such a thing most certainly WILL NOT be normal, typical, or “routine”.

Better to heed the Gospel, get baptized
and become a faithful member of the Church,
than “hold out” for a miracle…
no matter what certain misguided clergy
might say!  

Lionel Andrades continues his in-depth series on the fine points of understanding and properly applying the defined Catholic dogma: EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS” (Outside the Church There Is No Salvation) which has remained “on the books” and unchanged for over 500 years, as formally defined at the 15th century Council of Florence, and confirmed by at least two later popes.

Read Lionel’s latest article

The efficacious virtue of divine light and grace remains our only true hope for salvation.


by Doug Lawrence

The only church that was ever personally founded by Jesus Christ is the one, holy, apostolic and universal church … known today as Catholic.

The ordinary means of personal salvation in Jesus Christ is through baptism … which is “the door” by which someone typically enters … along with a lifetime of subsequent, faithful participation in all of the work, worship, sacraments and devotions of the Catholic Church.

Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. But God is sovereign, merciful, and all powerful … and he can save whomsoever he wishes … for any reason or for none … even in direct exception to the rules of the church, which are necessarily subject to the will of God, in all things.

Yet, anyone God chooses to save is saved only by the effective application of the grace that Jesus obtained for all, on the cross at Calvary.

The Catholic Church itself has canonized only a few thousand saints. Hence, the church claims no direct knowledge of the salvation … or damnation … of the great majority of souls.

In spite of all this, some Catholics maintain
that we can be absolutely confident of the salvation
of other apparently “good” people,
who through no fault of their own,
never became members of the Catholic Church.

Yet we know not of a single one, for certain!

Jesus remains the Blessed Hope of our salvation. Until the moment Jesus, the just judge  personally invites into heaven (or banishes us to hell) the best we can do is depend upon his saving grace, so that we might one day, like Saint Paul, be able to truthfully exclaim:

For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished [my] course, I have kept the faith: Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing. (2 Timothy 4:1-8)

St. Paul turned out to be correct, and the Church subsequently confirmed as much, by officially declaring him a saint. Yet we have absolutely no specific knowledge of anyone outside the church ever being admitted to heaven.

But what about St. Daniel the Prophet, St. John the Baptist, St. Dismas – the “good” thief, and the many prophets and patriarchs of old? It remains a complicated subject!

Read Lionel Andrades latest column on this matter.

Lionel Andrades: EWTN position paper at odds with authentic Catholic teaching.

Friday, February 17, 2012

EWTN’S NEW REPORT ON OUTSIDE THE CHURCH NO SALVATION ASSUMES THOSE SAVED WITH THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE ETC ARE EXPLICITLY KNOWN TO US AND SO CONTRADICTS THE DOGMA

EWTN has placed a report on the internet titled Outside the Church No Salvation which criticizes ‘ the rigorist position of Fr. Feeney (that all must be actual members of the Catholic Church to be saved)’ and claims it has ‘been condemned by the Magisterium.’

In other words EWTN says every one does not have to convert into the Church for salvation (Pope Pius IX, Allocution), the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are defacto, explicitly known cases which contradict ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible teaching’ (Letter of the Holy Office 1949).Also EWTN suggests that there are is a Magiseterial document which says specifically that Fr.Leonard Feeney was condemned for heresy and which EWTN has not specified.

Outside The Church There Is No Salvation

The doctrine that “Outside the Church there is no salvation” is one that is constantly misinterpreted by those who won’t submit to the Magisterium of the Church.

Lionel: The Magisterium of the Church says all need to enter the Church for salvation. (Dominus Iesus 20, Ad Gentes 7, Lumen Gentium 14, Catechism of the Catholic Church 845,845, Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441 etc).

Lumen Gentium 16 and LG 8 are not exceptions to the dogma since we do not know any explicit case of a non Catholic saved in invincible ignorance, good conscience or with ‘elements of sanctification’.

EWTN:

Faith does not depend upon our ability to reason to the truth but on our humility before the Truth presented to us by those to whom Christ entrusted that task. This is why the First Vatican Council taught that it is the task of the Magisterium ALONE to determine and expound the meaning of the Tradition – including “outside the Church no salvation.”

Lionel:

EWTN is contradicting the Magisterial documents cited above.

EWTN:

Concerning this doctrine the Pope of Vatican I, Pius IX, spoke on two different occasions. In an allocution (address to an audience) on December 9th, 1854 he said:

We must hold as of the faith, that out of the Apostolic Roman Church there is no salvation; that she is the only ark of safety, and whosoever is not in her perishes in the deluge; we must also, on the other hand, recognize with certainty that those who are invincible in ignorance of the true religion are not guilty for this in the eyes of the Lord. And who would presume to mark out the limits of this ignorance according to the character and diversity of peoples, countries, minds and the rest?

Lionel:

EWTN assumes that ‘those who are in invincible ignorance of the true religion’ are an exception to the ‘rigorist interpretation’ which is that the Apostolic Roman Church ‘is the only ark of safety, and whosoever is not in her perishes in the deluge.’

The Church Fathers and the popes knew there was no contradiction.This was the error of the Archbishop of Boston Ruchard Cushing and the Jesuits there. Cushingism says every one needs to enter the Church, except, for those in invincible ignorance etc.Since Cushingism assumes that these ‘exceptions’ are defacto known to us in the present times.

 

EWTN:Again, in his encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore of 10 August, 1863 addressed to the Italian bishops, he said:

It is known to us and to you that those who are in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, but who observe carefully the natural law, and the precepts graven by God upon the hearts of all men, and who being disposed to obey God lead an honest and upright life, may, aided by the light of divine grace, attain to eternal life; for God who sees clearly, searches and knows the heart, the disposition, the thoughts and intentions of each, in His supreme mercy and goodness by no means permits that anyone suffer eternal punishment, who has not of his own free will fallen into sin.

Lionel:

Invincible ignorance is not an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

When CCC 846 says all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church this is not a contradiction to CCC 846 also saying that all need to enter the Church as ‘through a door’ and that all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation. (AG 7).

EWTN:

These statements are consistent with the understanding of the Church contained in the documents of Vatican II, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as well as explaining why the rigorist position of Fr. Feeney (that all must be actual members of the Catholic Church to be saved) has been condemned by the Magisterium.

Lionel:

It depends on the interpretation. Do we interpret the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II according to Cushingism or Feeneyism?

 

EWTN:

It is ironic that precisely those who know their obligation to remain united to the Magisterium, and thus on whom this doctrine is morally binding, keep themselves from union with the Roman See on this point.

Lionel:

EWTN is still denying the centuries old interpretation of the dogma and assuming that there are defacto exceptions in Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

EWTN also implies that the popes and Church Councils ex cathedra were wrong. Since it is assumed that they were contradicted by magisterial teachings of popes and Vatican Council II.

EWTN slanders a priest in good standing with the Catholic Church. -Lionel Andrades

1.

Outside The Church There Is No Salvation

——————————————————————————–

The doctrine that “Outside the Church there is no salvation” is one that is constantly misinterpreted by those who won’t submit to the Magisterium of the Church. Faith does not depend upon our ability to reason to the truth but on our humility before the Truth presented to us by those to whom Christ entrusted that task. This is why the First Vatican Council taught that it is the task of the Magisterium ALONE to determine and expound the meaning of the Tradition – including “outside the Church no salvation.”

Concerning this doctrine the Pope of Vatican I, Pius IX, spoke on two different occasions. In an allocution (address to an audience) on December 9th, 1854 he said:

We must hold as of the faith, that out of the Apostolic Roman Church there is no salvation; that she is the only ark of safety, and whosoever is not in her perishes in the deluge; we must also, on the other hand, recognize with certainty that those who are invincible in ignorance of the true religion are not guilty for this in the eyes of the Lord. And who would presume to mark out the limits of this ignorance according to the character and diversity of peoples, countries, minds and the rest?

Again, in his encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore of 10 August, 1863 addressed to the Italian bishops, he said:

It is known to us and to you that those who are in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, but who observe carefully the natural law, and the precepts graven by God upon the hearts of all men, and who being disposed to obey God lead an honest and upright life, may, aided by the light of divine grace, attain to eternal life; for God who sees clearly, searches and knows the heart, the disposition, the thoughts and intentions of each, in His supreme mercy and goodness by no means permits that anyone suffer eternal punishment, who has not of his own free will fallen into sin.

These statements are consistent with the understanding of the Church contained in the documents of Vatican II, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as well as explaining why the rigorist position of Fr. Feeney (that all must be actual members of the Catholic Church to be saved) has been condemned by the Magisterium. It is ironic that precisely those who know their obligation to remain united to the Magisterium, and thus on whom this doctrine is morally binding, keep themselves from union with the Roman See on this point.

Answered by Colin B. Donovan, STL

Link

Unchanging Catholic Dogma Reaffirmed: No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church.


The recurring post-Vatican II theme, “God Is Love” seems to have led a large cadre of liberal Catholics, including many priests and bishops, into assuming (and therefore teaching) that an all-loving God would most certainly relax his rules and violate his own personal standards in order to give a “pass” to those who, for whatever reasons, have failed to become a member of the Catholic Church.

These same folks also maintain that it would be totally illogical for a loving God to act in any other way, arguing that anyone might be assured of salvation, even if they happen to be Pagan, Jew, (Democrat?) atheist, agnostic, etc. … so long as they follow the dictates of their conscience and attempt to live a good life. They even go so far as to infer that we can “bank” on it.

On the traditional Catholic side, we have the infallible, thrice confirmed Catholic dogma “EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS” (Outside the Church There Is No Salvation) which has remained “on the books” and unchanged for over 500 years, as formally defined at the 15th century Council of Florence and confirmed by at least two later popes.

The documents of Vatican II were crafted to be so inexact as to provide little confirmation of traditional Catholic dogma, so here we are … still arguing about something which was actually settled centuries ago.

With modernist bishops generally in charge, it remains risky for any Catholic to challenge the liberal view on this matter. Fortunately, in spite of all this, a number of the faithful are willing to step up and speak the whole truth.

It should also be worth noting what the Bible says about Jesus Christ and love:
“Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. (John 15:13)

Shouldn’t that be enough for these guys?

Read Lionel Andrades’ latest report

Official Vatican Document On Ecumenism

Talmudic Jews have a blasphemous opera in Italy


Oppression of Catholics continues

Popes and saints have opposed attacks of the Talmudic Jews on the Catholic Church. Today the evil seems unopposed. The Talmud which blasphemes Jesus and Our Lady is being translated into Italian by the Italian Ministry of education. Rabbi Ricardo Segni, the chief leftist Rabbi in Rome, is on the committee overseeing the translation. From January 24 to 28 at the theatre Parenti in Milan a blasphemous opera was held. It had the support of the Jewish Left media. The opera Sul concetto di volto nel figlio di Dio, Romeo Castellucci does not come under hate laws created by the Jewish Left, the ADL etc. The staging of this opera in Milan known for its blasphemous scenes when staged abroad, is part of the religion of the Talmudic Jews. The director of the Parenti theatre it is reported, is a Jew, Ruth Shammah.

Blasphemy is part of the beliefs of members of the Bnai Brit, Italy who have threatened Catholic academics and universities with criminal charges, for only affirming Catholic teaching. They object to the Catholic teaching which says Judaism and other religions are not paths to go to Heaven and that Jews need to convert into the Catholic Church to avoid Hell; for salvation. (Dominus Iesus 20, CDF, Notification on Fr. Jacques Dupuis S.j etc). The Rabbis visited the Urbaniana Pontifical University in Rome.

The Jewish Left values and the opera in Milan represent Satan and were not criticized by the Jewish Left.

The opera in Milan against the belief in God with its accompanying blasphemy, in the arts and media, is a part of Talmudic Judaism, the religion of the Freemasons and the Jewish Left. It is the religion of those who choose to serve Satan instead of God.

Those who oppose the Talmudic Jews, the Satanists, Freemasons and the Kabbalists are threatened with anti Semite laws. It is anti Semitic to be a Catholic.

Jesus called a type of Jews, children of the devil and ‘snakes and vipers’. He spoke about the ‘synagogue of Satan’.

The owner of the adult film industry in the USA is a Jew and also blasphemes against Jesus it is reported on the internet. Recently there was a Catholic Jewish Left Day of Reflection in Rome. Maintaining dialogue and ‘having good relations with the Jews’ means not being victimized by the political and military threat of Israel and the Jewish Left. In exchange, the Catholic Church has to change its teaching in ecumenism (no ecumenism of return) and Judaism and other religions (they do not have to convert and all religions are equal). Restrictions are placed on the Catholic Traditional Latin Mass which is vehemently opposed in the leftist mainstream media in Italy.

The price of ‘good relations’ is the creating of a culture with blasphemy, atheism and hate enforced with legal blackmail and extortion, against the followers of Jesus Christ, whom Satan hates.

The Antisemitism threat is being used against Catholic bishops to make them announce that those who are faithful to Jesus and His Church are not Catholics. Catholics are being asked by the Jewish Left not to use the word ‘Catholic’. Satan is a liar and his actions are covert.

Those Catholics who rebel could be ruined financially. So Catholics do not want to talk about this issue in public. They just mention the ‘liberals’ and not the Jewish Left threat to ‘liberal Catholics’ to remain liberal.

I was studying at a Pontifical University and seminary in Rome but could not continue my studies since they have to protect themselves from Jewish Left laws. The faculty was being opposed by ‘outsiders’ because of my official Catholic views. My Spiritual Director was being telephoned and finally he asked me to search for a new Spiritual Director. This priest himself would have to leave the seminary.

Pontifical universities in Rome welcome students with liberal views, freethinkers and New Agers, those opposed to Church teachings. Those who hold the Catholic teachings are threatened and expelled. This is done often with the approval of the Vatican including the former Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The cardinals and bishops want to maintain ‘good relations’ with the Jewish Left and their Catholic supporters like Andrea Riccardi and the St. Egidio organization.

Prayers of Reparation were held on January 23 by the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate Benevento and Il Camino dei Tre Sentieri. Protests were held outside the theatre by Catholic political organizations Nuova Forza, Militia Christi and others.-Lionel Andrades

Forza Nuova, Militi Christi and others are protesting against the opera in Milan.

Visit Lionel’s blog

Can a Catholic bishop become a heretic through sins of omission? If so … what then?


A recent post by Lionel Andrades explains that according to Canon Law, a bishop is a juridical person and is also required to be Catholic. As such, that bishop is obliged to affirm all the teachings of the Catholic Church.

If the bishop refuses to affirm the Catholic faith when questioned or challenged, it serves as a tacit denial.

In light of this … can a bishop who denies any part of the authentic Catholic faith legitimately continue to fulfill his duties as a Catholic and/or a bishop?

If so … how? If not … who is responsible for seeing that the problem is promptly and satisfactorily remedied?

Read the article at Lionel’s blog

ANTI SEMITIC TO BE A CATHOLIC:
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2012/01/anti-semitic-to-be-catholic.html

TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC ORGANISATIONS BEING MONITORED IN ROME: http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2012/01/traditional-catholic-organisations.html

Baptism of Desire: A hopeful theological premise that lacks the divine certainty of sacramental baptism.

Practically everyone needs the baptism of water for salvation – while in theory a person can be saved with the baptism of desire – Rector, Church Santa Maria Annunziata, Rome

Being saved with the baptism of desire etc he said is an impossibility. ( ‘impossibilisimo’).The Franciscan had got it right. The baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are not ‘practical’ ( defacto) exceptions .To claim that they are practical exceptions would be indifferentism and syncretism. It would be a negation of an infallible teaching. This would be a mortal sin and heresy. The stuff of excommunications. It would be a sacrilege for the priest offering Holy Mass.

Today morning at 10.30 a.m the priest offered Holy Mass in Italian with his face towards the altar and not the congregation. Communicants also received the Eucharist kneeling on a single pew, placed in the centre aisle.He was the Rector of the Church, Santa Maria di Annunziata, Rome. The Rector from the community Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate founded by Fr. Stefano Manelli F.I spoke on the necessity of the baptism of water for all people to go to Heaven.

Read more from Lionel Andrades

Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing’s legacy: Followers include EWTN and SSPX


When I contact the Catechetics and Liturgy Office in the diocese of Sydney they too assume that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are an exception to the dogma. So widespread is this issue in the Church.

From the liberals to the SSPX Holy Cross seminary in Australia all assume that there is a visible baptism of desire.

The Archbishop assumed the baptism of desire was visible and so contradicted the dogma outside the church there is no salvation. He assumed that those saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance were known to us and so it contradicts Fr. Leonard Feeney’s traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Since the time of the Archbishop Cardinal Richard Cushing it is assumed there are two interpretations of the dogma. 1)the rigorist interpretation of Fr. Leonard Feeney, the popes and saints and 2) the non rigorist interpretation. The non rigorist interpretation says everyone needs to enter the Church for salvation except for those in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. It is assumed here that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma. So this is a ‘new ‘interpretation.

We now know that there is only one interpretation of the dogma, the centuries old interpretation since the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are not known to us.

It is assumed that Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance, good conscience) is an exception to the dogma. This would be assuming that those saved in invincible ignorance are defacto known to us in particular cases. We know that they are not visible and explicitly known to us but known only to God. So they are not exceptions to the dogma.

De facto, everyone needs to enter the Church for salvation. De jure in principle those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are known only to God. The baptism of water is explicit. The baptism of desire is implicit.

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was addressed directly to the Archbishop of Boston. It was critical of the Archbshop. It mentioned ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible statement’. The dogma does not mention any exceptions. The dogma also indicates, like Fr. Leonard Feeney, that everyone needs to explicitly enter the Church for salvation.

Today the USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops), Eternal Word Television Network, Catholic Answers, Society of St. Pius X, Pontifical seminaries and universities, sedevacantists, priests, nuns and lay Catholics are all unknowingly following the legacy of the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits of Boston College.

They assume the baptism of desire etc is visible and so is an exception to the dogma.

Probably many readers here too would make the same assumption.

The book the Bread of Life mentions ‘the catechumens’ who die without the baptism of water.

Unlike the Catechetical and the Liturgy Office of the diocese of Sydney, Australia, the Jesuits there and the SSPX Holy Cross Seminary they do not consider the baptism of desire (followed by the baptism of water for them) as exceptions to the dogma.

The Bread of Life was published after the excommunication and before the lifting of the excommunication. He was not required to recant or change his writing.

In The Bread of Life he recognizes that a genuine desire of a catechumen could provide justification. These were rare cases, ‘in certain circumstances'( Letter of the Holy Office 1949). These cases of the baptism of desire were not the ordinary means of salvation. God would then provide the grace for the person to receive the baptism of water.

So in general there were not three types of baptism but only one. Only God could know who was saved with the baptism of blood and desire. So they were not an exception to everyone needing the baptism of water and Catholic Faith to go to Heaven.

De facto, in reality the ordinary means of salvation for all adults is only the baptism of water and Catholic Faith. This is the only explicit means of salvation.

The Baptism of desire cannot be a part of the ordinary means of salvation since we do not know any de facto case.

The Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing was wrong in assuming that the baptism of desire was an exception to the dogma. For the first time in the history of the Catholic Church he made the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance an issue. Then along with the Jesuits he placed this teaching prominently in Vatican Council II.

The media implied that the baptism of desire etc was an exception to the dogma. So they assumed Fr. Leonard Feeney was in heresy and that the Archbishop was a pioneer.

A defacto-dejure analysis of magisterial texts show that the Letter of the Holy Office does not mention this implication. Neither does Vatican Council II, or Lumen Gentium 16 make the false assumption.

Instead Lumen Gentium 16 only mentions invincible ignorance. It does not say that it is an exception the dogma or the ordinary means of salvation. Neither is it an exception to Vatican Council II, LG 14, AG 7.

So Lumen Gentium 16 only refers to a possibility, de jure. Something always implicit and unknown to us. De facto the ordinary means of salvation is LG 14, AG 7 i.e. the baptism of water and Catholic Faith.

So like Vatican Council II (LG 14, AG 7) Fr. Leonard Feeney affirmed the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. He accepted in principle, dejure that a person could be saved with the baptism of desire i.e. a genuine desire with perfect charity, followed by the baptism of water which would all be implicit and known only to God.

The confusion on this issue continues since the media is in the hands of the enemies of the Church.

The magisterium however has approved the communities of Fr. Leonard Feeney and has not retracted the dogma which is in accord with Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257,845,846 ( with a de facto-de jure analysis), Dominus Iesus 20, Redemptoris Missio 55 etc.

The Council of Trent mentions the baptism of desire and we know it is implicit and not the ordinary means of salvation. There is no Church definition which says the baptism of desire excludes being saved with the baptism of water. -Lionel Andrades

From the Merriam-Webster On-Line Dictionary:

Definition of DE FACTO

: in reality : actually

Origin of DE FACTO

Medieval Latin, literally, from the fact

First Known Use: 1601

Definition of DE JURE

1
: by right : of right
2
: based on laws or actions of the state <de jure segregation>

Origin of DE JURE

Medieval Latin

First Known Use: 1611

A note from Lionel Andrades: In the context of this article, the best definition of De Jure would be “in principle”.

Ignorance – Invincible and Vincible

Baptism of desire: Still controversial.


The sedevancantists at Most Holy Family Monastery (MHFM) claim that a Catholic should not attend the Novus Ordo Mass unless/until the priest affirms his personal belief that “Outside the Church There is No Salvation”.

However here in Rome there are Catholic priests who offer Mass in Italian. They affirm the dogma in public. They also correctly assume that the baptism of desire is implicit and so does not contradict the dogma.The MHFM on the contrary, imply that the baptism of desire is defacto known to us and so being explicit, contradicts the dogma. So the sedevancantists reject the baptism of desire. They believe every one, without exception, needs to enter the Church visibly and they imply that the baptism of desire taught by Trent etc., is an exception to the dogma.

Those who accept the baptism of desire (explicit or implicit) are called heretics by the MHFM. However there are priests from different countries here, who know that the baptism of desire can only be implicit and is never visible. So how can it be an exception to the dogma ?

If the MHFM, American sedevancantists, innocently, like so many Catholics assume that the baptism of desire is visible it is understandable. If they choose to continue in this error even after being informed, then it is heresy. This would apply also to Catholic non-sedevacantists, as they are rejecting the Council of Trent on the baptism of desire and they assume wrongly that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma.

Daphne McLeod,Chairman of Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice, England says there can be non-Catholics saved with the baptism of
desire and in invincible ignorance, and this is not an exception
to the dogma “Outside the Church There is No Salvation”.
– Lionel Andrades

Visit Lionel’s Catholic blog

*****

Editor’s note: The term “sedevacantist” essentially means “empty chair” … referring particularly to office of the papacy. With some variations, sedevacantists believe, due to various heresies and apostasy in the modern church, that we no longer have a valid pope sitting in the authoritative chair of St. Peter.

Depending on which group of sedevacantists you encounter, the list of recent, false popes varies, but most begin with Pope John XXIII and go from there. The Most Holy Family Monastery (MHFM) is a relatively “high-profile” example of this type of groups … which are (hopefully) … pretty “far out there” in their theology.

The dogma “Outside the Church there is no salvation” (extra ecclesiam nulla salus) is both ancient and logical. Jesus Christ founded only one Church for the purpose of our salvation, so it just makes good, logical sense to believe that membership in the Catholic Church is (typically) required, in order for a soul to one day, be invited into Heaven.

The Church also rightly admits that our all powerful God is sovereign, and he can choose to save anyone he cares to … for any reason … or for none at all … whether that person is Catholic, Protestant, Pagan, or none of the above. But in any event, salvation remains solely dependent upon the divine application of that saving grace which Jesus obtained for us on the cross, at Calvary.

Yet, the Sacrament of Baptism remains the typical and ordinary means (the door) by which anyone may freely expect to become a member of the Church. And this forms the basis of the controversy!

Traditional Catholics, bolstered by some 1900+ years of consistent church teaching and practice, understand that sacramental baptism is a public, permanent, and very definitive event … for a number of very good reasons.

Alternatively, “baptism of desire” and similar types of “non-standard”, “special arrangements” are typically known only to God, and subject exclusively to his divine prerogatives and will.

Since no man … not even a pope, bishop, or priest … should be so presumptuous as to claim to understand the mind of God … these matters remain extraordinary events, similar to miracles, subject only to God’s inestimable love and incalculable mercy, and closely linked with his divine, all-knowing, eternal system of perfect justice.

In this, the best we can do is hope, since none of us can know … this side of Judgment Day … precisely whom God may have “singled out” for this non-standard “form” of divine mercy.

Yet many Catholics … including some popes, bishops, and priests … claim that God is love, and a loving God would never knowingly permit a soul that might otherwise be saved … to go to hell … simply due to what they consider to be a mere “technicality”. These folks maintain that something well short of the Sacrament of Baptism … “Baptism of Desire” … defined only according to various, theoretical, man-made criteria … is all that’s actually required.

I maintain that anyone who knows (or should know) the constant and traditional teachings and practices of the Catholic Church would be a fool to take any chances at all, when it comes to matters of his/her own, personal salvation. If water baptism was good enough for Jesus (and just about everyone else we know of) then that is obviously the “smart” way to go!

The divine “tie-breaker” in all of this, strongly in favor of reliance on the traditional sacrament, whenever possible, is the power of water baptism to instantly and definitively “wash away” all pre-existing sins of every kind … making the baptized a living temple of the Holy Spirit … an adopted child of God … a member of the Church … a citizen of Heaven … and co-heir with Jesus Christ … right here and right now, with no waiting.

Can’t beat that!