Tuesday, July 22, 2014

BODers of today carry the same Cushingite error of thinking the baptism of desire as a visible exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus-Catarella,CathInfo forum

Traditional Catholic forum - message board for Catholics
Because the BODers of today carry the same Cushinguite error of thinking of BOD as a visible exception to EENS. 
 The Cushing error of invincible ignorance that completely twists the genuine Church fallible teaching on BOD for cathechumens only that have an EXPLICIT Faith in Christ and are at the point of death.

The abomination of today's denial of EENS was never approved, taught,  thought....by any pope, saint, or theologian...
Oh wait, perhaps by Cushing and Rahner and those alike, in times where the Church has succumbed to the heresy of Modernism.
-Cantarella

Papa Pio XII commette un errore? : tradizionalisti e progressivisti usano la stessa irrazionalita

 
Dal momento chi ritiene che fuori della Chiesa non c'è salvezza credere correttamente, ma non si può sostenere se stessi con le dottrine e la teologia. Se dicono che si crede in fuori della Chiesa non c'è salvezza penseranno sei un sedevacantisti o che non acetta Concilio Vaticano II.Questa e una bugia di progressivisti.
 
Concilio Vaticano II( Ad Gentes 7) e in perfetto accordo con il dogma sul exclusivo salvezza in la Chiesa Cattolica e non c'e eccezione sulla terra.
Anche NA 2' tuttavia non raramente riflettono un raggio di quella verità che illumina tutti gli uomini ', salvezza con 'imperfetto comunione con la Chiesa'(UR 3) ecc. non sono eccezione per il dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Perche questi casi noi non sappiamo in tempo presente(2014).Quando loro non esiste in nostra realita loro non e una eccezione per fuori della chiesa non c'e salvezza.



Quando  parli con qualcuno sul questo sojjetto bisogna dire che
1) Concilio Vaticano II (AG 7) e in accordo con il dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
2) Noi non conosciamo qualcuno in 2014 chi ha ricevuto salvezza in invincible ignoranza(LG 16) ecc. Questi case e un a possibilita ma non e defacto.Non existe in noi realita.
3) Eccetto la Lettera di Santo Ufficio 1949 nessuno documento della Chiesa Cattolica ha detto che questi casi( salvezza con battesimo di desiderio, invincible ignoranza ecc) sono visibili per noi in tempo presente.Anche nessuno documento, includono Concilio Vaticano dire che questi case sono eccezione per il dogma fuori della chiesa non c'e salvezza.
4) Noi conosciamo che non possono vedere i morti in cielo. Noi conosciamo Papa Giovani Paolo II e in Paradisio but non posso vedere fisicamente con occhio.Quando qualcuno dire che lui e noi tutti posso visto i morti, addesso chi e in cielo, e falso.
Se Papa XII o Papa Francesco dire cosi deve essere respinto. E irrazionale. Comune coscienza e che noi non posso vedere i spiriti sulla terra.
La Lettera di Sant Ufficio 1947 indicava che il battesimo di desiderio e invincible ignorannza e una eccezione per il dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus come interpretava sulla tradizione per secoli.Questa e una errore obbietivo di Lettera.Una caso ipotetico, teoretico non posso diventa una eccezione . Non e una defatto caso in 2014.Non conosciamo di  nome e cognome in 2014 a chi ha ricevuto salvezza in 2013-2014 con 'semi de Verbo'(AG 11), invincibile ignoranza ecc.


La Lettera ha fatto una errore di fatto.Un errore obbiettivo.Cardinal Francesco Marchaiatti Selvaggiani pensa che battesimo di desiderio era una eccezione per il tradizionale interpretazione di Don Leonard Feeney di Boston.Lui ha detto che non c'e defatto eccezione per il dogma. Archvescovo di Boston, Cardinal Richard Cushing, era una liberale come e Jesuiti di Boston anche non correge questa errore.

Vorrei dire che il magistero prima e dopo Concilio Vaticano afferma la tradizionale interpretazione di dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Il dogma sul esclusivo salvezza in la Chiesa Cattolica, senza defatto eccezione , e in accordo con Concilio Vaticano II e Catechismo della Chiesa Cattolica. Non e una rottura con Tradizione.
Quando le progressivisti dire che Concilio Vaticano II e una rottura con Tradizione in particolare la dogma sul salvezza,  loro interpretava Concilio con una falsa premessa. Loro assumere che tutti salvezza indicava a Concilio (NA 2,LG 16 ecc) non e fisicamente invisibili ma fisiamente visibili.Questo non e razionale.In realita loro non hanno una citazione da Concilio Vaticano II per loro opinione chi e irrazionale.Non c'e una razionale ragione per supportare loro opinione che Concilio Vaticano II e una rotturna con Tradizione.


E triste che Fraternita di San Pio X e Francescani della Immaculata anche pensano che tutti salvezza chi e referisce in Concilio Vaticano II e fisicamente visibli per noi.
Se loro correte questa errore Concilio Vaticano e tradazionale e senza ambiguita sul altre religione e communita cristiane.Perche il Concilio Vaticano II e in accordo con dogma fuori della chiesa non c'e salvezza.
-Lionel Andrades

Factual error during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII has influenced many departments of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB):major error, public heresy

Whenever there are references to Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church by the USCCB , it must be noted, that they are using an  irrational hypothesis in the interpretation. They assume that the dead-saved in invincible ignorance are visible to us and so are explicit exceptions to traditional teachings.
The effect of the irrational and factual error of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII can be seen extensively in the working of many departments of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).The Letter issued by Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani assumed that the dead now saved in Heaven with the baptism of desire or in invincilble ignorance were objective, visible in the flesh exceptions to all physically needing the baptism of water for salvation.
 
So this month on July 11 Jem Sullivan Ph.d, in a reflection on the Daily Mass Readings , on the USCCB video, affirmed Jesus without the necessity of the Catholic Church, for salvation. The Church would not be necessary for the salvation of all people since there is defacto, known salvation outside the Church for her. It is as if she could name someone saved in 2013-2014 without the baptism of water.This is taught to seminarians at the USCCB approved seminary in Rome.
Fr.Dan Merz, Associate Director, Secretariate of Divine Worship,USCCB in an e-mail  to me(July 14,2014) also implied that being saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire are physically visible in the present times.So all people, for him, defacto do not have to enter the Catholic Church for salvation.The USCCB Doctrinal Committe in a Notification issued on Fr.Peter C.Phan also assumed that being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are exceptions to all needing to enter the Church for salvation.In other words these cases are known and visible and so they are explicit exceptions to the traditional teaching.The USCCB will not correct the Archdiocese of Boston website which states Jews do not have to convert in the present times.May be they assume that they could meet a non Catholic in Boston who is saved in Heaven or about to be saved, in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire.
All this irrationality is being  taught in the USCCB Certification Course for Catechists.While young candidates with a religious vocation have to assume that there is known salvation(visible in the flesh) outside the Church in the present times.This is the view of the Directors of Vocations.They have to accept theology built upon a fantasy premise.
 
"We Catholics no longer embrace a theology of return" says Fr. John Crossin, O.S.F.S (5:24. See video below) the Executive Director of the Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). The head of this USCCB department,while throwing away Tradition and the Great Commission of Jesus, is saying that the public policy of the USCCB is that Protestants, Evangelicals and Orthodox Christians do not have to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation.When St.Paul and the Apostles baptized with water they baptized people into a community, a Church. This was the Catholic Church. Fr. John Crossin is denying the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and he is changing the Nicene Creed ( I believe in one(known) baptism for the forgiveness of sin). He is rejecting Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7) which says all need faith and baptism for salvation,which would also include the Jews.He is also rejecting Nostra Aetate  which says that the Church is the one and only religion of God and that Catholics are the new people of God, the new Chosen People.The Church is the new people of God (Nostra Aetate 4).The video indicates that he is trying to please the influential Jewish Anti Defamation League which approve  homosexuality, atheism, abortion and other pro-Satan values.
Whenever there are references to Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church by the USCCB  they are using the irrational interpretation which comes from the time of the pontificate of Pope Pius XII. They assume that the dead-saved in invincible ignorance are physically visible to us and so are explicit exceptions to all physically needing the baptism of water, for salvation.
This dead man walking and visible theory by the USCCB is the singular factor which decides if Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church is a continuation or break with  the Traditional teachings of the Church.A false premise used with any Church document would result in an irrational conclusion.It also results in a sin. There is the heresy of faith and the heresy of morals. This is  the heresy of faith, which St.Thomas Aquinas called a mortal sin.
-Lionel Andrades
 

 
 

October 5, 2009
Catholic Church-the one and only religion of God-Vatican Council II
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2009/10/catholic-church-one-and-only-religion.html

 

Call of the Prophets -Michael Voris

Monday, July 21, 2014

Where does the SSPX say there are defacto exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? Here it is : it's irrational

Is not the SSPX formally saying here that there are defacto exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
If there are defacto exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation in the present times then it means the dead-saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire are physically visible and known to them.They would have to be present and known to be exceptions. 
If these cases are "visible," then why can't we name those individuals? Who are they? 
 
Lionel: 
Correct, that's my point. So how can the USCCB , the SSPX, CathInfo and so many others say there are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? This is heresy?
 I don't think that the SSPX has ever made such a claim, even implicitly. If you believe otherwise, please post the exact paragraph from a SSPX document.

 
Lionel:
Here is the proof. The following two passages are from the SSPX website.

 



Error 1:
 
Misrepresentation of the dogma, "Outside the Church There Is No Salvation"
The first error of those who take their doctrine from Rev. Fr. Leonard Feeney, commonly known as "Feeneyites," is that they misrepresent the dogma, "Outside the [Catholic] Church there is no salvation." The Feeneyites misrepresent this as, "Without baptism of water there is no salvation." (Without the baptism of water there is no defacto salvation.Without the baptism of water de jure in principle, salvation is a possibility known to God)
St. Cyprian (c.210-258) was the first Catholic saint to use in writing[1] the expression "extra ecclesiam nulla salus," ("Outside the Church there is no salvation"). In the very passage in which he uses this phrase, St. Cyprian also expresses that baptism of water is inferior to baptism of blood. Since baptism of blood, he says, is not fruitful outside the Church, because "outside the Church there is no salvation," baptism of water also cannot be fruitful outside the Church. The reason for this is that it would imprint the character of baptism but would not give sanctifying grace, i.e., justification, which opens the gates of heaven.
In the very next paragraph, St. Cyprian teaches, with all the fathers, doctors, popes and unanimously all theologians, that baptism of blood, that is, dying for the Catholic Faith, is the most glorious and perfect baptism of all, explicitly stating "even without the water." In the paragraph following this one, St. Cyprian teaches that Catholic faithful who, through no fault of their own, were received into the Catholic Church without a valid baptism,[2] would still go to heaven. This is to say that they would die with the requisite Catholic faith and charity, necessary to go to heaven, though without the waters of baptism. These requisites are exactly the conditions of "baptism of desire."
(Why is the SSPX priest mentioning the baptism of desire and baptism of blood with reference to Fr.Leonard Feeney? How can something that is not defacto seen ( but accepted hypothetically) be an exception to relevant to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney?)
Why not then believe the dogma "outside the Church there is no salvation" "...with the same sense and the same understanding - in eodem sensu eademque sententia"[3] - as the whole Catholic Church has taught it from the beginning, that is, including the "three baptisms"? Fr. Leonard Feeney and his followers give a new meaning, a new interpretation, to this dogma.
(Since 'from the beginning' the Church has never taught that the baptism of blood and desire are physically visible to us in the present times.Since they are not visible in the present times they cannot be a defacto exception to the traditional interpretation.For the SSPX priest these cases are relevant. So he implies that they exist defacto. If they did not exist defacto they would not be relevant. So indirectly he is saying that these cases are visible for us and they are exceptions to the dogmatic teaching).
This traditional interpretation of this dogma, including the "three baptisms," is that of St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Fulgentius, St. Bernard, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Peter Canisius, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Pope Innocent II, Pope Innocent III, the Council of Trent, Pope Pius IX, Pope St. Pius X, etc., (Wrong - none of the persons mentioned here say that the baptism of desire is physically visibile to us) and unanimously all theologians (prior to the modernists). (None of them!) St. Alphonsus says: "It is de fide [that is, it belongs to the Catholic Faith - Ed.] that there are some men saved also by the baptism of the Spirit."[4] (He does not imply or say that it is visible to us physically. Since it is an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney, it must be physically visible to Fr.Francois Laisney and the SSPX)
The traditional interpretation of "Outside the Church there is no salvation," was approved by the Council of Florence (1438-1445).(It does not mention the baptism of desire as an exception. So it was not saying that these cases are visible to us) The Council Fathers present made theirs the doctrine of St. Thomas on baptism of desire, saying that for children one ought not to wait 40 or 80 days for their instruction, because for them there was "no other remedy."[5] This expression is taken directly from St. Thomas (Summa Theologica, IIIa, Q.68, A. 3) and it refers explicitly to baptism of desire (ST, IIIa, Q.68, A.2). Despite the fact that the Council of Florence espoused the doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas, it is astonishing to see Feeneyites opposing this council to St. Thomas! (St.Thomas never said that the baptism of desire is visible to us or that it is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is the error of the SSPX )
None of the arguments of the Feeneyites have value against the rock of Tradition. But, to be consistent, let us refute two more of their major errors. (This visible for us baptism of desire is an objective error of the SSPX and not part of Tradition before 1949).
 
 
In the above passage from the SSPX website:
 
Does the SSPX for you infer that the baptism of desire is visible for us?
Does the SSPX for you infer that the baptism of desire is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla ?
____________________________
 

Risultati immagini per Photo Is Feeneyism Catholic ?
Bishop George Hay, Bishop of Edinburgh, Scotland (d. 1811), in his excellent Catechism, The Sincere Christian, devotes a good portion of Volume II of the work to the question of salvation out of the Church, because the Church is the rule or measure of faith, without which faith it is impossible to attain heaven. Natural good will is not enough to be saved. Anyone who dies with natural good will alone cannot be saved. However, if God gives the grace to embrace the true faith, and one accepts - that is baptism of desire - he is truly a member of the Church, and can therefore be saved inside the Church.(Theoretically he can be saved inside the Church.Practically we do not know such a case. So it is not relevant to the dogma on salvation. It is not an exception to all needing the baptism of water in the present times. There still is no known salvation outside the Church). In Volume I he explicitly affirms that baptism of desire saves souls who cannot receive baptism of water. (Yes as a possibility but no as a defacto reality.There is no defacto case in the present times.So there is no exception.) Let us conclude this article with the teaching of this great bishop:
In like manner, suppose a person living in a false religion dies without giving any sign of embracing the true faith, or without being reconciled to the Church of Christ, we can never say of such an one with certainty that he is lost; (we do not know who this person is specifically.It is a hypothetical case. How can a hypothetical case be an exception to the traditional teaching according to Fr.Leonard Feeney? The traditional teaching says every one needs the baptism of water for salvation) all that we can say must be under the same condition as in the other case: if he has actually died as he lived, separated from the true Church of Christ and without the true faith of Christ, he cannot be saved. But if God, of His great mercy, has given him in his last moments light and grace to see and embrace the true faith, and he has corresponded with so great a favor as God requires, he will be saved....(True and we do not know who he is. He would be known only to God. )Q. 28. But, in the case proposed, if a person( a hypothetical case) in his last moments shall receive the light of faith from God, and embrace it with all his heart, would this suffice to make him a member of the true Church in the sight of God?

A. Most undoubtedly; the case is the same in this as in that of baptism. Though Jesus Christ expressly says, "Except a man be born of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (Jn. 3:5), which establishes the absolute necessity of baptism for salvation; (every one needs the baptism of water for salvation and there are no defacto exceptions.There are no exceptions in 2014) yet, suppose a heathen should be instructed in the faith of Christ, and embrace it with all his heart, but die suddenly without baptism ... in the above dispositions with sincere repentance and a desire for baptism, this person will undoubtedly receive all the fruits of baptism from God, and therefore is said to be baptized in desire. (True theoretically. Here it is being implied that this is a defacto known case and so is an explicit exception to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney) In like manner, suppose a person brought up in a false religion embraces the true faith, which God gives him in his last moments - as it is absolutely impossible for him in that state to join the external communion of the Church in the eyes of men, yet he certainly will be considered united to her in the sight of God, by means of the true faith which he embraces, and his desire of being united to the Church, were it in his power. (Sincere Christian, Vol. 2, pp.322-323.). (Yes theoretically. Again it is being implied here that this is a known case and so becomes an exception to all needing to convert. A hypothetical case is considered a defacto example of salvation outside the Catholic Church)
 http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_baptisms.htm

-Lionel Andrades 

USCCB Ecumenism based on misinformation and an irrationality

video-stars-2013-3
Bishop Dennis J. Madden,Chairman of the Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops(USCCB) conducts ecumenism and dialogue while affirming in public that all non Catholics do not need to enter the Catholic Church formally with 'faith and baptism' (AG 7).Since for him there are known exceptions in the present times(2014) to salvation with the baptism of water.
He knows of cases in 2014 who are saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance who are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
 
"We Catholics no longer embrace a theology of return" says  Fr. John Crossin, O.S.F.S (5:24. See video below)  the Executive Director of the Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).
 
This policy on ecumenism of the USCCB was affirmed this month by Jem Sullivan in a Daily Mass Reading reflection, on the USCCB video. She affirmed Jesus without the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation.It seems the same with Bishop Dennis Madden and Fr.John Crossin the head of the USCCB  Secretariate for Ecumenism.This could also be the USCCB policy on conversions to the Catholic Church in interreligious dialogue for Jews, Muslims etc.
 
Fr.Dan Merz, Associate Director, Secretariate of Divine Worship,USCCB also implied that being saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire is physically visible in the present times.So all people defacto do not have to enter the Catholic Church for salvation.The USCCB will not correct the Archdiocese of Boston website which states Jews do not have to convert in the present times while the USCCB Doctrinal Committe in a Notification on Fr.Peter C.Phan assumed that being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are exceptions to all needing to enter the Church for salvation.
 
In Ecumenism Bishop Madden needs to tell the  Christian communities and churches in the USA that Vatican Council II ( AG 7) states 'all' need 'faith and baptism' for salvation.Christians do not have Catholic Faith which includes the faith and moral teachings of the Church and the Sacraments though which Jesus saves.So according to Vatican Council, though there are good things in non Catholic religions, there members are oriented to Hell unless they enter the Catholic Church.
 
The USCCB ecumenism is based on misinformation about what the Catholic Church really teaches.It is also based on an irrationality. It is assumed that the dead now saved with the baptism of desire etc are visible in the flesh exceptions to Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is an objective error in the ecumenism of Bishop Madden and the USCCB.
 
At the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church committed herself irrevocably to following the path of the ecumenical venture….” [Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Ut Unum Sint, #3].The BCEIA and the Secretariat support this vital commitment. In a dozen formal dialogues and in a host of less formal conversations, the BCEIA and the SEIA seek to fulfill this commitment. The commitment is intrinsic to Catholic identity. We are committed to listen to and learn from our neighbors. We hope that in God’s time we will come to full communion with our Christian brothers and sisters. We hope that we will come to a deeper understanding with the members of other religious groups and together build a strong civil community.-Bishop Dennis Madden

' is intrinsic to Catholic identity'? Is  exclusive ecclesiology not part of the Catholic identity ? Where has Vatican Council II said that there are known exceptions to outside the Catholic Church to all needing to enter for salvation.
 
The USCCB like the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales assume that Nostra Aetate 2 'a ray of the Truth' refers to persons personally known in 2014 who are visible exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The dead-saved are visible exceptions to the Catholic Church's exclusivist identity.This irrational premise is the basis of their theology on ecumenism and a break with the past teachings of the Catholic Church.
pope-francis-and-patriarch-bartholomew
So the USCCB  Ecumenism The Nicene Creed is:
I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, (who now teaches that outside the Church there is visible salvation in 2014)  the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. (outside of which there is known salvation and so the Church is no more ecclesiocentric) I confess one Baptism ( along with visible for us baptism of desire, being saved in invincible ignorance, visible for us being saved with ' a ray of the Truth' etc.So the baptism of water is not always defacto necessary for salvation.) for the forgiveness of sins  and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.Lionel AndradesSunday, July 20, 2014

USCCB does not correct error on Archdiocese of Boston website

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/07/usccb-does-not-correct-error-on.html

Saturday, July 19, 2014

USCCB WITH SO MANY OFFICES HAS NO CLARIFICATION OR DENIAL : MAJOR ERROR BEING TAUGHT

 
 

Baptismofdesire.com: historically there was not a single reference to explicit for us, seen in the flesh baptism of desire

   I  sent the following blog post to Fr. Benedict Hughes, CMRI.


Where does the Catholic Church teach that the baptism of Blood and of Desire are physically visible and known to us in the present times (2014) ?

Copertina anteriore
He recommend the website: www.baptismofdesire.com.
So I wrote to them.Paul has responded.  

He has not been able to cite a single reference to the baptism of desire in which is is said that these cases are explicit for us and seen in the flesh. There is no saint or Pope who has said that the baptism of desire is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The visible for us baptism of desire is irrational.Since these cases are always known only to God and are invisible for us.So a hypothethical case cannot be a defacto exception in the present times to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.
Once this error is identified the sedevacantists and the SSPX and other traditionalists are in a position to accept Vatican Council II not as ambigous but traditional.
'A ray of the Truth'(NA 2), saved in imperfect communion with the Church'(UR 3), 'seeds of the Word'(AG 11) are hypothetical cases and cannot be defacto exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Tradition.This is a common mistake being made by those who reject Vatican Council II.-L.A

 
Paul:
      Regarding baptism of desire being implicit or explicit, the Church has always taught that both apply. St. Thomas Aquinas writes in his Summa in the 13th century, "Man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly". St. Alphonsus Liguori writes in his manual on Moral Theology in the 18th century, "...accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true baptism of water". St. Pope Pius X writes in the Catechism of St. Pius X in the 20th century, "...along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism". The Holy Office writes in 1949 (approved by Pope Pius XII), "...when a person is involved in invincible ignorance, God accepts also an implicit desire". Numerous other detailed examples on explicit versus implicit faith can be found in the Summa Theologica. The ordinary magisterium of the Church clearly teaches both, and as we know the ordinary magisterium is infallible, so no Catholic can challenge this.
Lionel:
When I use the words implicit and explicit I am not referring to it theologically. By implicit I mean physically invisible, something not objective, not seen externally, not known personally or seen in the flesh as opposed to something seen defacto, in reality, in the present times.
Paul:
Regarding the letter of the Holy Office in 1949, it was originally sent privately to Archbishop Cushing. In that private letter, it clearly stated:
"the august Pontiff in an audience on the following Thursday, July 28, 1949, deigned to give his approval"
Lionel:
This is told to us by Archbishop Richard Cushing who suggested that there were known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. In other words he could name someone saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire.He could personally see or meet such cases who were in Heaven.He would have to know and see them for them to be an exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. This was a new doctrine. It was also irrational and heretical.
 
Paul:
So we know Pope Pius XII approved of the contents of the letter, and whether it was public or private at that moment is irrelevant.

Fr. Francisco Radecki gives a lecture during the Fatima ConferenceLionel:
We do not know if Pope Pius XII directly saw the Letter since it was an inter office letter from one bishop to another.However he did condone it over the years.Perhaps he did not want to state in public that all Jews in Boston and elsewhere need to convert into the Church for salvation and there are no exceptions.This was the time when Israel had become a new state and the Jewish Left influence was becoming dominant in Catholic Boston.

Paul:
Yet 3 years later in 1952, Archbishop Cushing was ordered to globally publish the letter. At the time he published it, he wrote in his introductory letter:
"The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office has examined again the problem of Father Leonard Feeney and St. Benedict Center. Having studied carefully the publications issued by the Center, and having considered all the circumstances of this case, the Sacred Congregation has ordered me to publish, in its entirety, the letter which the same Congregation sent me on the 8th of August, 1949. The Supreme Pontiff, His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, has given full approval to this decision. In due obedience, therefore, we publish, in its entirety, the Latin text of the letter as received from the Holy Office with an English translation of the same approved by the Holy See."
 Fr. Michael Oswalt speaks of his experiences in a VII seminary
Lionel:
So says a cardinal who rejected a defined dogma with claims of allegedly being able to see the dead saved with the baptism of desire etc ,cases known to him .These cases of the deceased were exceptions, for him,to the traditional and 'rigorist interpretation' of the dogma on exclusive salvation.He also did not lift the excommunication on Fr.Leonard Feeney for some 19 years since he refused to say that there is known salvation outside the Church.
Paul:
So Pope Pius XII not only gave full approval to the original letter, but also gave full approval to publishing it 3 years later. The letter was published in "The Church Teaches", "The Catholic Mind", and the "American Ecclesiastical Review", and Canon Law Digest (all contain imprimaturs), and was no doubt published elsewhere since there was not a single objection to it in the Church. You will note that these are not just American publications. For example, Canon Law Digest has always been used globally by laypeople and clergy alike, and is the most trusted resource in the Catholic Church containing changes to Canon law after the 1917 code was published.
Lionel:
The Letter did not have the seal and signature of the Secretary of the Holy Office 1949.It was not published in the Acta Apostolica Sedis.So Fr.Karl Rahner and the liberals who wanted to do away with the traditional dogma, cited the American Ecclesiastical Review and placed it in the Denzinger.
In his memoirs Senator Edward Kennedy wrote that he was present when his brother Robert phoned Archbishop Cushing and told him to suppress Fr.Leonard Feeney.
 Adsum photos
Paul:
So to say the letter from the Holy Office was in error, you are also at the same time incriminating Pope Pius XII for approving the original letter in 1949, and for approving its global publication in 1952, and for allowing it to remain in circulation for the rest of his pontificate until 1958. You are in effect saying that Pope Pius XII ordered an error to be published globally, misleading the faithful worldwide.
 
Lionel:
If someone says that all of us humans can see the dead on earth I would not accept it.I know I cannot see the deceased saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire.If Pope Pius XII or Pope Francis made this absurd claim I would reject it and so would others. Since it is common knowledge that the deceased are not physically visible to us on earth. In general we humans cannot see ghosts.We cannot see the spirits now dead, as real human beings.
It is you who are implying that Pope Pius XII made this absurd claim. If Pope Pius XII said that the deceased saved with the baptism of desire are visible exceptions to all needing to enter the Church with the baptism of water,then he is saying that the dead-saved are visible and living exceptions.
 
Paul:
As you know, the dogma of the infallibility of the Church promises that the Church cannot teach error.
 
Lionel:
Correct. The dogma on extra ecclesiam nulla salus has been defined three times and it does not mention the baptism of desire as an exception. This is what you imply on your website.You are rejecting the defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and also the dogma on the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra.
Paul:
In all my years discussing the subject I have never heard someone come right out and say that Pope Pius XII misled the faithful, but that is what you are saying here.
Lionel:
This is what you and so many other Catholics imply when you suggest there are known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is what you imply when you refer to explicit, visible in the flesh baptism of desire cases who are now in Heaven and are defacto exceptions to the traditional interpretation by Fr.Leonard Feeney.
 
Paul:
You are clearly mistaken and are treading on dangerous ground with your arguments.
Lionel:
You have not addressed the questions raised in the blog post which I sent you.
1) Do we personally know the dead now saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc,can we see them, are they physically visible to us in 2014 ?

2) Since we do not know any of these cases, in real life, they are not visible to us, there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, or Ad Gentes 7 which states 'all' need 'faith and baptism' for salvation ?
-Lionel Andrades