Ecclesia Dei, Vatican must clarify defacto and dejure analysis in magisterial texts for dialogue with sedevacantists MHFM

Church has not retracted extra ecclesiam nulla salus states Christ to the World magazine (May-June 1999 issue) published by the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate.

To invite the sedevacantists Most Holy Family Monastery (MHFM) into the Catholic Church, we first have to show them Church texts which uphold extra ecclesiam nulla salus, just as they the MHFM explain it.

We have to show them with pre-Vatican Council II, Vatican Council II and post Vatican Council II texts that there has been no change in the Church’s understanding of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

There is no Church text which is the basis for ‘a development of doctrine’ or a change of this ex cathedra dogma.

The MHFM believes that the Church is in apostasy and has thrown away extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Yet Magisterial documents show it is not true.

When Magisterial texts are analysed with the terms de facto and de jure, as used in the Introduction to Dominus Iesus, everything becomes clear.

The Magisterial texts will then indicate that the Catholic Church has not given up what the secular media calls ‘the rigorist interpretation’ of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Here is the de facto-dejure  analysis which is important for dialogue with the MHFM and other sedevacantists.

Pope Pius IX in an Allocution, December 9, 1854 wrote (source not cited):

 

" We hold as of 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 in invincible ignorance of the true religion are not guilty for this in the eye of the Lord. And who will presume to mark out the limits of this ignorance according to the character and diversity of peoples, countries, minds and the rest".

Pope Pius IX is saying de facto everyone needs to enter the Church, the only Ark of Salvation and de jure there can be people saved with invincible ignorance etc.

This is not vague. Neither does he contradict the dogma.It is in keeping with Tradition on this subject.

St. Thomas Aquinas held that everyone with no exception needs to de facto enter the Church for salvation while de jure there could be a man in the forest in invincible ignorance.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257 on the Necessity of Baptism indicates that the Church knows of no way to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water given de facto to adults with Catholic Faith and CCC 1257 also says God is not limited to the Sacraments, so de jure we accept that a person could be saved, in principle, without the Sacrament of the baptism of water.

 So if we say that everyone needs to enter the Church for salvation but there could be people in invincible ignorance or with the baptism of desire who  can be saved, without formal entry into the Church, then we must clarify this statement.

We could be precise and say, everyone de facto needs to enter the Church for salvation but there could de jure (in principle) be people in invincible ignorance or with the baptism of desire who can be saved without formal entry into the Church.

Now it is rational and logical and makes sense.

If we support the same doctrinal position as the MHFM on extra  ecclesiam nulla salus, and cite Vatican Council II and other Magisterial documents, then how could Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI be in error for the MHFM? The MHFM vilify the popes when the Magisterial texts issued by them affirm the ‘rigorist interpretation’ of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Similarly the communities of Fr. Leonard Feeney in the USA are now officially approved by the Vatican, and they have the same ‘rigorist interpretation’ of outside the Church there is no salvation. They are in accord with Pope John Paul II (Dominus Iesus 20) and Pope Benedict XVI, who never retracted the ex cathedra dogma when he was the Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.(Christ to the World magazine,May-June 1999 issue)

So if the Vatican recognizes the communities of Fr. Leonard Feeney then why not approach the MHFM and clarify this issue on outside the church there is no salvation.


If we showed the MHFM that we agree with them there could be no basis for their anger on the Internet and this could be the first step towards reconciliation.


When we use de facto and de jure analysis,dissenting professors at the Gregorian University, Urbaniana Universisty and other pontifical colleges and universities  cannot claim 'a development of doctrine'.


For example they cannot claim that Lumen Gentium 16, Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Since LG 16 refers not to de facto but to de jure salvation. There is no de facto (explicit) invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire that we can know of.We can only accept it in principle (de jure).We do not know of a single case of the baptism of desire over the last 100 years.
So if LG 16 refers only to dejure (in principle, known only as a concept) salvation then it  does not contradict 'the rigorist interpretation' of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which has only one infallible interpretation.
So where is the basis of ' a development of doctrine' with reference to Vatican Council II (LG 16) ?
The official teaching of the Catholic Church based on Magisterial texts is the same as the MHFM.
1. Extra eccleisam nulla salus means everyone with no exception needs to enter the Catholic Church for salvation (CCC 845,CCC 846 'the church is like a door', Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II,Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, Ex Cathedra etc).

2. There is no baptism of desire or invincible ignorance  that we can know of, since only God can  judge when this grace  is given to someone 'in certain circumstances' (Letter of the Holy Office 1949).


So to begin talks with the MHFM and other sedevacantists we must be aware of the  de facto and de jure analysis  of  Magisterial texts.


Also if we do not use this analysis, which the Church does in the Introduction to Dominus Iesus, , then we contribute to the confusion and we create differences and disunity when in reality there are no differences and we are in agreement on doctrine with the sedevacantists.


Also if we do not use this analysis we could be saying for example:


Pope Pius IX said everyone de facto needs to enter the Church for salvation and there are also  those who can  be saved de facto with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance and so everyone does not de facto have to enter the Church.


Does it makes sense ? Everyone needs to de facto enter but some do not!?


We could be saying:


St.Thomas Aquinas says that everyone de facto needs to be a  visible member of the Catholic Church for salvation and that there could be a man in the forest in invincible ignorance whom we de facto know and who could be saved.


Something is wrong somewhere?

We could be saying.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257 on the Necessity of Baptism indicates that the Church de facto knows of no way to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water given de facto to adults with Catholic Faith and CCC 1257 also says God is not limited to the Sacraments, so de facto we accept that a person could be saved, in principle, without the Sacrament of the baptism of water.

This is contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction!

With the defacto and dejure analysis however we have the basis to begin dialogue with all the sedevacantists.
-Lionel Andrades

FR. JOHN FLYNN SYDNEY ARCHDIOCESE SAYS WE CANNOT KNOW ANY PARTICULAR CASE OF THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE

Fr. John Flynn answers questions in the Sydney Archdiocese’s Internet Xt3 Forum's  Ask a Priest. He has not answered if it is a mortal sin to reject an ex cathedra dogma but agrees that one cannot know of any case of the baptism of desire, when God gives this grace to someone.

He was commenting on the report on  Fr. John George, also from the same diocese, claiming that we personally can know  cases of the baptism of desire and so do know them.

So does this mean that everyone with no exception needs to enter the Church to be saved since, we do not personally know any case of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance and only Jesus can judge?

Fr.John Flynn  cannot answer yes.

Since he observes that Dominus Iesus 20 says everyone needs to enter the Church while Dominus Iesus 21 suggests there are people who could  not be members of the church who can also be saved.He sees a contradictory teaching in Church documents on this issue.

Is there a contradiction?

No.

The de fide teaching is that everyone with no exception needs to enter the Church to avoid Hell and go to Heaven. De facto there are no exceptions and everyone must be a formal member of Jesus’ Mystical Body (Cantate Domino, ex cathedra, Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II etc).

De jure (in principle) there could be people saved who are not formal members of the Church. This would be known only to God. We do not know any case.

De facto and de jure  are terms used by the Church in the Introduction of Dominus Iesus.

So there is no contradiction.

The Church still teaches ,as it is did, for centuries that ‘all people’ need ‘Catholic Faith and the baptism of water’ (Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II) to be saved from Hell.

This is an ex cathedra, infallible teaching which Fr. John George denies on the internet forum True Catholic.

To deny an infallible teaching is a mortal sin. A priest in public mortal sin is not to offer Mass, according to Canon Law, until he has removed the scandal publically and received absolution in Confession.

Cardinal George Pell, the Archbishop of Sydney, Australia has been informed .Also Fr. John Usher, the Chancellor knows about this ‘public case’.

__________________________________________
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2010/10/frjohn-flynn-sydney-archdiocese-says-we.html

SYDNEY PRIEST BLOCKS REPORT VATICAN COUNCIL II SAYS ALL MUSLIMS, JEWS IN ROME, ITALY ARE GOING TO HELL

On the internet-board True Catholic the report VATICAN COUNCIL II SAYS ALL MUSLIMS, JEWS IN ROME, ITALY ARE GOING TO HELL was blocked by the Administrator-priest.

Here is the report

VATICAN COUNCIL II SAYS ALL MUSLIMS, JEWS IN ROME, ITALY ARE GOING TO HELL
Contrary to what your parish priest has been saying Vatican Council II indicates that all Muslims and Jews in Rome and Italy are on the way to Hell.

So get this message across to the people so that they can conduct Catholic Mission and Evangelization based on the truth.

Do not hide it from Catholics in the parishes that the Bible, the Church and of course Vatican Council II says Jews and Muslims need to convert into the Catholic Church to go to Heaven. All of them.

The Council says this is in two important places .In Ad Gentes 7 it says all people need Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water for salvation. All means everyone with no exceptions.

Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door.-Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II.

Then Ad Gentes 7 also says those who know about Jesus and the Catholic Church and yet do not enter are on the way to Hell. In Italy Muslims and Jews know about Jesus and the Catholic Church. It is a mortal sin of faith when they do not enter the Catholic Church.

Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it.-Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II
Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.-Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II

So ask your parish priest why has he not spoken on this subject?

Is he trying to protect someone?

So many people are going to Hell and he does not speak or write about it?

Is he protecting himself?
_________________________________________

SYDNEY PRIEST AFFIRMS ALL THE TEACHINGS OF THE CHURCH IT IS CLAIMED (CHURCH WITHOUT EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS AND MORTAL SIN AND WITH SACRILEGOUS MASS?)

The Co Administrator of the Australian Internet-board True Catholic sent me a final note (Oct.24, 2010 ) to say that they affirm all the teachings of the Church. I had asked her, Julie, to ask the Co Administrator Fr. John George to affirm the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus , Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II, Dominus Iesus 20 and CCC 845,846. He would not.

Probably there could be other priests in the Archdiocese who will also say that they accept all the teachings of the Church. Their understanding of Church (ecclesiology) is that there is no mortal sin or if there is mortal sin no one can judge a mortal sin since we do not know the intentions of a person. Also, that  the Church has retracted extra ecclesiam nulla salus since Lumen Gentium 16 contradicts it. So for them since there is no more mortal sin there can be no accusation of a Sacrilegious Mass.

In the case of this Sydney priest the filth is all over the forum-board True Catholic and in full public view. He also controls the posts to the forum. Also his  cartoons, caricatures and photos are an example of the Archdiocese’s pastoral approach (Oct.23,2010).

lionel has a grave epistemological prob veering on delusion of reference

Posted by fr john george on October 23, 2010, 11:51 am

1 the fact that lionel doesnt know water baptisms in eg iraq doesnt mean they dont exist[try moral certitude] they are not to be relegated to lionels de iure concoction of figments, hypothesis and fantasy indeed non existence

2 existence of events doesnt hang on lionels knowledge of them[delusions of paranoid grandeur]

3 there is moral certitude of explicit baptism of desire[in fact infallible certitude since church doesnt define hypotheticals[bod and bob are explicitly defined

4.bod and bob are explicit de facto realities in past and present known with moral certitude

5 lionel overestimates his abilities in saying infallibly bod and bob people are known only to god

6.moral certitude is the bane of rigid jansenists[they atrociously lack common sense reject probablism -causing untold harm to confessional practice-wanting infallible certitude versus moral certitude or common sense[or aquinas' synderisis]-they leave a devastating trail of despairing scruple cases

the infallible definitions of bod and bob supplement eens definitions

In the October 21, 2010, 8:32 pm, post in reply to "Re: I HAVE PROVEN IN ENCHIRIDION…

He is asked:

Here is the dogma text referred to in the Denzinger and the Haec Suprema.

Do you acknowledge that it exists and do you as a Catholic affirm it?

If not simply say no.

COUNCIL OF TRENT INFALLIBLY TAUGHT SALVATION THROUGH BAP OF DESIRE Posted by fr john george on October 21, 2010, 5:26 pm, in reply to "Re: Mr. Andrades and Mr. George, Baptists don't go to Hell. Salvation only comes through Jesus Christ"

TO SAY WE CANT KNOW PEIOLE SAVED BY BAPOF DESIRE IS LIKE SAYING YOUUPHOLD SACRAMENT OF CONFESSION BUT YOU CANT TELL WHO HA BEEN RESTORED TO SANCTIFYING GRACE[THERE ARE TELL TALE SIGNS=RECEPTION OF COMMUNION BUT ONLY MORAL CERTITUDE AS THERE CAN BE SACRILEGES

So how can this priest in the Archdiocese of Sydney reject an ex cathedra dogma and still offer Mass as if all is normal.

To not affirm the dogma text when repeatedly asked is a mortal sin. A priest Fr.Tissia Balasuriya OMI was formally excommunicated by Pope John Paul II for rejecting the ex cathedra dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady.

Why is Fr.John permitted to offer Mass ?

Divorcees and married priests in the Archdiocese of Sydney or the rest of Australia  who are not permitted to receive the Eucharist or in the case of ex priests not permitted to offer Mass could ask why  an exception is being made for Fr.John George?. Fr.John is a retired supplementary priest of the Archdiocese.

Canon Law states that a priest in public mortal sin is not to offer Mass. Veritatis Splendor states that a mortal sin is a mortal sin and the exterior action indicates the inner intention.

How can he claim that there is a visible,knowable baptism of desire ?

Why should implicit baptism of desire be in conflict with the ex cathedra dogma. If there are any persons saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance it will be known to God only.So it does not conflict with the dogmatic teaching that every one  with no exception needs to be a formal member of the Cathoilc Church to go to Heaven avoid Hell.

In no Magisterial texts including Vatican Council II is it said that invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire refer to 'explicit' knowable cases. Even the Popes and their Councils which gave us the infallible teaching knew that baptism of desire is always implicit  and so unknown to us. So why make it an issue?

Why use a false interpretation to commit a mortal sin and then offer Mass in Sydney which is a sacrilege known to many people through the Internet forum and through these posts sent to them in the offices of the Archdiocese asking them to stop this sacrilege of the Eucharist.

_________________________________________________________________

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2010/10/sydney-priest-affirms-all-teachings-of.html

WILL CARDINAL PELL SIDE WITH THE PRIEST WHO SAYS WE CAN JUDGE WHO HAS THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE ?

Michael a Catholic trade union leader from the Diocese of Paramatta and whose bishop is Anthony Fischer was responding to the report

REPORT ‘SYDNEY PRIEST SPOTS BAPTISM OF DESIRE CASES DOWNTOWN ?’ E-MAILED TO ARCHDIOCESE OF SYDNEY: NO RESPONSE, ISSUE IS THE EUCHARIST

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2010/10/report-sydney-priest-spots-baptism-of.html#links

Michael says he notices 'similar charachteristics with my writing and that of schismatics, sedevacantists and the milder Feeneyities’

I responded : I accept Vatican Council II , the Catechism of the Catholic Church and other Church documents. So your charge of schismatics, sedes, etc will not work here.

Michael then says that my report on Fr.John Gorge is false since he ‘has provided you with Church interpretation based on sould theology. Cardinal Pell of Sydney will rightly support Fr.George you ought to realize. So would Rome?'

Lionel’s response:

On the other hand I am aware of modernism in the present day of which you and Fr. George are a few cases among many.

I have quoted Ad Gentes 7, CCC 845,846, Dominus Iesus 20 and the ex cathedra dogma and have asked Fr.George to affirm them but you'll will not(on the Internet-board True Catholic).

Also he makes me laugh when he repeatedly indicated that we can know who has the baptism of desire.

Your claim that LG 16, CCC 847 etc (invincible ignorance, baptism of desire etc) is explicit has no basis in any Catholic Magisterial teaching. The documents are neutral with respect to Baptism (BOD) of desire, its you and and the other heretics, who claim it refers to 'explicit' BOD etc.

Common sense asks, aside from the faulty interpretation how can it be explicit for us?

So this is your 'church interpretation ' with 'sound theology'.

VATICAN : AN INJUSTICE IS BEING DONE TO THE MOST HOLY FAMILY MONASTERY , RECONCILIATION NEEDED

Negotiations have not been open to them as to all Fr.Leonard Feeney’s communities. Misunderstandings need to be removed then they can be in a position to want to enter the Church. The main issue is the same, extra ecclesiam nulla salus. New York Archdiocese in no doctrinal position for talks.

An injustice is still being done to the Most Holy Family Monastery(MHFM),New York who call themselves sedevantists since no one from the Catholic Church is willing to theologically explain extra ecclesiam nulla salus and show them that they are in full agreement with the offiical teaching of the Catholic Church which has not been retracted.

No one representing the Catholic Church is willing to sit together with them and talk .

Archbishop Timothy Dolan, the Archbishop of New York would be considered a heretic by the MHFM since he has rejected the ‘rigorist interpretation’ of the thrice defined ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The Archbishop and his catechesis department no where mentions that Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II, Catechism of the Catholic Church 845,846 and Dominus Iesus 20, besides other Magisterial teachings are in accord with the MHFM’s understanding of the dogma.

Since the Vatican and the Diocese of Worcester have recognized a few years back, with canonical status, the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney may be here there is an answer to negotiations with the MHFM. The St.Benedicts Abbey and the Sisters of St.Benedict Center both hold the ‘rigorist interpretation’ of the ex cathedra dogma as do the MHFM who mistakenly call themselves sedevacantists. The Abbot of the St.Benedict’s Abbey is in good standing with the Catholic Church and has written a book on this subject.

He could bring out the points that we Catholics have in common with the Dimond brothers. Once all understand that we agree on the main issue with them, extra ecclesiam nulla salus, misunderstandings on the other issues can be removed.

The present Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has been a former professor at the Jesuit Gregorian University Rome and has not made his views on this issue public. He could be another professor of the Gregorian or Boston College and so is not qualified to negotiate with the MHFM or represent all Catholics.

_________________________________________

SYDNEY PRIESTS CLASH

One priest in the Archdiocese says the baptism of desire can be known the other says no way

On the internet an Australian priest says that the baptism of desire is knowable while another says that it is not.

One is sure that it can be known. The other is persistent it cannot.

The confusion is all over the Archdiocese.

REPORT ‘SYDNEY PRIEST SPOTS BAPTISM OF DESIRE CASES DOWNTOWN ?’ E-MAILED TO ARCHDIOCESE OF SYDNEY: NO RESPONSE, ISSUE IS THE EUCHARIST

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2010/10/report-sydney-priest-spots-baptism-of.html#links

MONS.IGNACIO BARREIRO CARAMBULA, INTERIM PRESIDENT,HUMAN LIFE INTERNATIONAL,USA SAYS "We don't know any case of the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance.Only Jesus can judge"

 

“We don’t know any case of the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance. Only Jesus can judge”, said Mons Ignacio Barreiro Carambula.

Mons Barreiro is presently the Acting President of the Human Life International USA. He had been offering the Tridentine Rite Mass in Rome at the Church of San Giuseppe a Capo le Case, and is also a concelebrant at solemn Masses in Italian. He is the Spiritual Director of Militia Christi, Italy.

NOBODY PROCLAIMED THE GOOD NEWS IN ROME TODAY : MISSION SUNDAY

The Good News is that for every one to go to Heaven and avoid Hell they need to enter the Catholic Church with Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water and so receive the benefits of Jesus’ Supreme Sacrifice, His Death and Resurrection which is offered as a free gift for all who respond, by living the Gospel according to the Catholic Church.

All Hindus, Jews, Muslims and other non Christians and all Orthodox Christians, Protestants, Pentecostals and other non Catholics need to enter the Catholic Church  Jesus' Mystical Body, with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water, to avoid Hell.

-Lionel Andrades

Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door.-Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Councl II

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

 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it - Catechism of the Catholic Church 846 (Emphasis added)

Above all else, it must be firmly believed that “the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door”.77 This doctrine must not be set against the universal salvific will of God (cf. 1 Tim 2:4); “it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation”.-Dominus Iesus 20 (Emphasis added)

1. “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215). Ex cathedra.
2.“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.).Ex cathedra.(Emphasis added)

3.“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.) Ex cathedra – from the website Catholicism.org and “No Salvation outside the Church”: Link List, the Three Dogmatic Statements Regarding EENS (Emphasis added)

_____________________________________________
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2010/10/nobody-proclaimed-good-news-in-rome.html#links

REPORT ‘SYDNEY PRIEST SPOTS BAPTISM OF DESIRE CASES DOWNTOWN ?’ E-MAILED TO ARCHDIOCESE OF SYDNEY: NO RESPONSE, ISSUE IS THE EUCHARIST

The following report has been distributed to the Chancery and other offices in the Archdiocese of Sydney, Australia hoping they will let us know what is the official position of the diocese on basic teachings of the Catholic Faith being denied on the forum-board True Catholic.

1.Is it possible for a priest to explicitly know baptism of desire cases? Can a baptism of desire case be known explicitly by anyone?

2.Can a priest not affirm an ex cathedra dogma and still offer Holy Mass? Is there not a need for a clarification to remove the scandal? Is this priest in mortal sin and does he have to go for Confession before he offers daily Mass in the Archdiocese?

Friday, October 22, 2010

SYDNEY PRIEST SPOTS BAPTISM OF DESIRE CASES DOWNTOWN?

Fr. John George rejects an ex cathedra dogma in public on his forum and so is in public mortal sin. The priest is not permitted to offer Mass without Confession and making public amends to remove the scandal.He couldn't care.

An Australian priest from the Archdiocese of Sydney suggests that one can actually know cases of the Baptism of desire. I do not know if the Vicar General of the Archdiocese of Sydney also has this ‘gift’. However if you ask an average Catholic if everyone needs Catholic Faith for salvation the answer could be , “ Yes accept for those with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance”.

It would seem by that answer that there are many other Catholics who can also ‘spot’ cases of the baptism of desire.

Fr. John George, Supplementary Priest – Retired (St John Vianney Villa 70 Market St Randwick NSW 2031) indicates on his forum-board one can have the moral certainty of people having the baptism of desire.

By moral certainty does it mean you can tell that there were five baptisms of desire cases this month in Sydney?

The Catholic Church teaches that the baptism of desire is always implicit and so known only to God. Since it can never be explicitly known to us it does not contradict the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which says everyone needs to be an explicit member of the Catholic Church to avoid Hell and there are no exceptions.

On the forum the priest was not willing to affirm the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

1. “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215). Ex cathedra.

2.“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.).Ex cathedra.

3.“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.) Ex cathedra – from the website Catholicism.org and “No Salvation outside the Church”: Link List, the Three Dogmatic Statements Regarding EENS http://nosalvationoutsideofthecatholicchurch.blogspot.com/

To reject an ex cathedra dogma in public is a mortal sin and the priest is not permitted to offer Mass without Confession and making public amends to remove the scandal.

_________________________________________

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2010/10/sydney-priest-spots-baptism-of-desire.html

DIOCESE OF MANCHESTER APPOINTS PRIEST TO SERVE AT FR. LEONARD FEENEY'S COMMUNITY : CHAPEL APPROVED

All friends and supporters of Saint Benedict Center are hereby informed that Father David Phillipson has been appointed to serve at Saint Benedict Center, Richmond. Father has been granted faculties by the Bishop of Manchester to offer Mass and hear confessions at the Center’s Immaculate Heart of Mary Chapel. Please join the Brothers and Sisters, Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, in our gratitude to Bishop McCormack for approving our chapel as a place of Catholic worship and for allowing Father Phillipson to serve here.

from the website Catholicism.org

The following is a vocation video of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. The video is not of the community settled at   Richmond  where the chapel has been approved, but  at Still River.

 http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2010/10/diocese-of-manchester-appoints-priest.html

SYDNEY PRIEST SPOTS BAPTISM OF DESIRE CASES DOWNTOWN?

Fr. John George  rejects an ex cathedra dogma in public on his forum and so  is in public  mortal sin. The  priest is not permitted to offer Mass without Confession and making public amends to remove the scandal.He couldn't care.

An Australian priest from the Archdiocese of Sydney suggests that one can actually know cases of the Baptism of desire. I do not know if the Vicar General of the Archdiocese of Sydney also has this ‘gift’. However if you ask an average Catholic if everyone needs Catholic Faith for salvation the answer could be , “ Yes accept for those with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance”.

It would seem by that answer that there are many other Catholics who can also ‘spot’ cases of the baptism of desire.

Fr. John George, Supplementary Priest – Retired (St John Vianney Villa 70 Market St Randwick NSW 2031) indicates on his forum-board one can have the moral certainty of people having the baptism of desire.

By moral certainty does it mean you can tell that there were five baptisms of desire cases this month in Sydney?

The Catholic Church teaches that the baptism of desire is always implicit and so known only to God. Since it can never be explicitly known to us it does not contradict the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which says everyone needs to be an explicit member of the Catholic Church to avoid Hell and there are no exceptions.

On the forum the priest was not willing to affirm the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

1. “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215). Ex cathedra.

2.“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.).Ex cathedra.

3.“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.) Ex cathedra – from the website Catholicism.org and “No Salvation outside the Church”: Link List, the Three Dogmatic Statements Regarding EENS  http://nosalvationoutsideofthecatholicchurch.blogspot.com//

To reject an ex cathedra dogma in public is a mortal sin and the priest is not permitted to offer Mass without Confession and making public amends to remove the scandal.
_________________________________________

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2010/10/sydney-priest-spots-baptism-of-desire.html

LIONEL'S E-NEWS FOR THE WEEK OCT 17-23, 2010 : DENZINGER-SCHONMETZER 3870-3873 SAYS ALL JEWS IN BOSTON ORIENTED TO HELL : EWTN, CATHOLIC ANSWERS,USCCB PERSIST WITH FALSE INFORMATION

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2010
DENZINGER-SCHONMETZER 3870-3873 SAYS ALL JEWS IN BOSTON ORIENTED TO HELL : EWTN, CATHOLIC ANSWERS,USCCB PERSIST WITH FALSE INFORMATION
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2010/10/denzinger-schonmetzer-3870-3873-says_20.html

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2010
DENZINGER-SCHONMETZER 3870-3873 SAYS ALL JEWS IN BOSTON ORIENTED TO HELL
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2010/10/denzinger-schonmetzer-3870-3873-says.html
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2010
EWTN MAINTAINS JEWISH LEFT, ZIONIST POSITION ON EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2010/10/ewtn-maintains-jewish-left-zionist.html

MONDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2010

URBANIANA UNIVERSITY GOES LUDICROUS: CLAIMS THERE IS AN EXPLICIT, SEEABLE, BAPTISM OF DESIRE
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2010/10/urbaniana-university-goes-ludicrous.html

ONLY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH-CATHOLIC MISSION OFFICE TO THE JEWS AND GENTILES IN ROME

…but he that believeth not shall be condemned.’-Mark 16:16

Lionel Andrades, Catholic layman
E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com
Blog: http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/
YouTube: http://it.youtube.com/LionelAndrades

DENZINGER-SCHONMETZER 3870-3873 SAYS ALL JEWS IN BOSTON ORIENTED TO HELL : EWTN, CATHOLIC ANSWERS,USCCB PERSIST WITH FALSE INFORMATION

To knowingly deny an ex cathedra dogma in public and then to fake information about it to millions of people is a grave sin for a Catholic

Denzinger cites the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.It indicates all non Catholics need to convert to avoid Hell. The Letter also known as the Haec Suprema was published in the Denzinger-Schonmetzer 3870-3873.

The truth in the Haec Suprema is a big secret hidden by Catholic organisations and apologists. Those ‘maintaining the lie’ include Eternal Word Television Network, Karl Keating’s Catholic Answers and the USCCB. Also some religious at the Vatican want to hide the truth about Jesus and the Church with respect to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

They do not want to be persecuted personally or as a community. The heresy, the lie, instead provides an easy life for Catholics.

If they admit that the Denzinger Enchiridion states all Jews in Boston (who were originally opposing Fr. Leonard Feeney ) are on the way to Hell it would mean a major change in evangelising or Mission in the Catholic Church. The enemies of the Church within and without know this.

Catholic Mission would pick up in a way it never has when Catholics know that the Church did not condemn Fr.Leonard Feeney for his rigorist interpretation of outside the Church there is no salvation.

The Denzinger Enchiridion and the Letter of the Holy Office show that Pope Pius XII supported Fr. Leonard Feeney on doctrine. He was not excommunicated for doctrine.

The Letter was not made public by the Archbishop of Boston for three years. When it was made known to all, on the insistence of the Vatican, there was no clarification from the Archdiocese on the false media reports.The reports said that the Catholic priest was excommunicated for heresy and the Church has changed its centuries-old teaching. Nether was there an apology to Fr. Leonard Feeney. The Archbishop seemed compromised.

Till today the Jewish Left media and their ‘Catholic’ supporters claim

1. The Catechism is opposed to the dogma.

2.  Vatican Council II is opposed to the dogma.

3. Denzinger condemned Fr. Feeney‘s interpretation of the dogma and so the Magisterium has condemned it too.

This is all false. It is part of the leftist propaganda on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Satan has convinced Catholics that they can deny this ex cathedra teaching and it is not a sin.

When the dogma said originally and for centuries that the majority or all non Catholics are on the way to Hell this was pointing to an objective reality at the supernatural level; Hell and Heaven. If one ‘develops’ the doctrine it does not mean that the reality at the supernatural level has changed. Hell is still Hell and people are going there in large numbers.

This is a first class heresy and the USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops), EWTN, Catholics Answers and others are teaching heresy with no Church texts to support their lies.

They now know the truth - that the Denzinger says all Jews, and other non Catholics, including Protestants are on the way to Hell. This is the official teaching of the Magisterium. It is supported by Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7), Catechism of the Catholic Church (845,846), Dominus Iesus (20) and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 issued to the Archbishop of Boston and published in the Denzinger Schonmetzer.

The errors about extra ecclesiam nulla salus are there on Wikipedia and the secular media  have also been included in encyclopaedias. The false information in Catholic encyclopaedias’ has been placed there by Catholic religious.

To knowingly deny an ex cathedra dogma in public and then fake information about it to millions of people is a grave sin for a Catholic.

DENZINGER-SCHONMETZER 3870-3873 SAYS ALL JEWS IN BOSTON ORIENTED TO HELL

Supports rigorist interpretation of Fr. Leonard Feeney, Vatican Council II, Catechism of the Catholic Church

The Denzinger-Schönmetzer, 3870-3873 indicates that the Catholic Church teaches all Jew in Boston, and the rest of the world, are on the path to Hell unless they convert into the Catholic Church.

The DE is wrongly reported in the media as being critical of Fr. Leonard Feeney when it really supports him with reference to the dogma.

Here is the relevant passage followed by the text of the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

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

However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it- Letter of the Holy Office 1949 published in the Denzinger-Schönmetzer, 3870-3873

Here is the ‘dogma’ the ‘infallible’ statement it refers to.

1. “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215). Ex cathedra.

2.“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.).Ex cathedra.

3.“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.) Ex cathedra – from the website Catholicism.org and “No Salvation outside the Church”: Link List, the Three Dogmatic Statements Regarding EENS http://nosalvationoutsideofthecatholicchurch.blogspot.com/

Vatican Council II also endorses the rigorist interpretation of the dogmas as does the Catechism of the Catholic Church

Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door.-Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church , outside the Church there is no salvation means 1) everyone who is saved, explicitly with the baptism of water and Catholic faith or implicitly, unknown to us and known only to God, are saved by Jesus and His Mystical Body the Catholic Church (CCC 846).2) everyone needs Catholic Faith and the baptism of water, and there are no explicit or implicit, exceptions that we can know of, to go to Heaven avoid Hell (CCC 845).Outside the Church there is no salvation and everyone needs to be a formal, explicit member to avoid Hell.

CCC 846 also affirms the rigorist interpretation of the ex cathedra dogma outside the church there is no salvation. All need to enter as through a door, this is the language of the Church Fathers on ecclesiam nulla salus.

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

No where in the Catechism (CCC 836,837,838,846,847,849-852 etc) is there a contradiction of the rigorist interpretation of the ex cathedra dogma. The Catechism is in accord with Fr. Leonard Feeney.

CCC 847 and 848 refer to those saved with a good conscience or invincible ignorance and who are unknown to us human beings but only known to God. They are saved ‘in certain circumstances’ (Letter of the Holy Office 1949).So the ordinary way of salvation is the baptism of water with Catholic Faith; the explicit, formal means of salvation. The ordinary way of salvation for non Catholics according to the Letter of the Holy Office cannot be the baptism of desire, invincible ignorance or a good conscience.

CCC 845 indicates that the only way of salvation that we humans ‘know’ is the explicit, formal means which includes the baptism of water. CCC 847, 848 refer to hypothetical cases, a possibility known only to God and which we can accept only in principle. We do not know any particular case of invincible ignorance.

Neither do we know any person whom Jesus will judge as having a good conscience on the Day of Judgement. So CCC 847,848 (implicit, hypothetical salvation) does not contradict CCC 845 (the need for explicit entry into the Church as if entering a Door).

All people (Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II, and CCC 845) with no exceptions that we know of need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water to go to Heaven and avoid Hell. Outside the Church there is no salvation. The exceptions (CCC 847) are unknown to us.

Lumen Gentium 16 (LG 16) does not contradict the infallible teaching.

Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.-Lumen Gentium 16, Vatican Council II.

Lumen Gentium 16 does not refer to explicit, knowable Baptism of desire and invincible ignorance. Those who will be judged with a good conscience are not explicitly known to us.

If one assumes that LG 16 refers to explicit baptism of desire then there would be trouble also with the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257.

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation... God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

CCC 1257 states that the Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the Baptism of water and also says God is not limited to the Sacraments. There could be some, or many, saved without the Sacrament of Baptism.

It would violate the Principle of Non Contradiction. It would mean de facto everyone needs the Baptism of Water and Catholic Faith to go to Heaven (AG 7,CCC 1257) and de facto there can also be people saved without the Sacrament of the Baptism of water (LG 16, CCC 1257). It does not make sense.

However if they considered LG 16 as referring to de jure, implicit salvation, something that we can accept in principle but which is only known to God ( it is only explicit for God and we do not know a single case of Baptism of Desire) then it would not violate the Principle on Non Contradiction. It would mean de facto every one needs to explicitly enter the Catholic Church while de jure, in principle there could be some people saved with implicit baptism of desire etc.

There is no explicit or implicit Baptism of desire that we can know of reason tells us. Neither the past popes or saints have referred to an explicit Baptism of desire. Neither does the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Since we know that there can be no explicit baptism of desire etc, LG 16, is referring to implicit Baptism of desire known only as a concept. Something hypothetical. A probability. A possibility.

Only God can know when it is explicit. We do not know of any explicit baptism of desire in the present times, which is external, see able and repeatable.

We do not know even in principle (implicitly) if there is any Baptism of desire in the present time. However we know as a concept that God is Good and Merciful and so could save a person with the Baptism of Desire whenever and if God wanted.

If the Baptism of desire etc is not explicit then LG 16 does not contradict the infallible teaching or Fr. Leonard Feeney. There is no confusion with CCC 1257. So then neither does the LG 16 text repeated in the Catechism contradict the ex cathedra dogma and Fr. Leonard Feeney.

The Church Councils and the Church Fathers said everyone, all with no exception, need to be an EXPLICIT member of the Church. Through explicit baptism of water and Catholic Faith.So LG 16 (implicit) does not contradict the dogma (explicit).

Then where is the basis for the ‘development’ of extra ecclesiam nulla salus? How can you interpret it differently from the past with no Church documents or text to state otherwise? If you cite LG 16 it is ludicrous .Your saying there’re is an objectively knowable baptism of desire.

There is no Church Document to support this false media claim.

The rigorist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus can be seen in the text of the dogma. It is confirmed in Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II (’all people need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation). It’s there also in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 845- the Church is like the Ark of Noah in which all need to enter.CCC846 the Church is like a door. These are images used by the Church Fathers for extra ecclesiam nulla salus). Dominus Iesus 20 (salvation is open for all but to receive it one has to enter the Church). Redemptoris Missio 55) in inter religious dialogue it must be remembered that the Church is the ordinary means of salvation).

Redemptoris Missio, Lumen Gentium 16, Mystici Corporis etc acknowledge there can be people saved in other religions. However this is possible only ‘in certain circumstances’ (Letter of the Holy Office 1949, it’s a possibility, a probability, known only to God. It is always unknowable and hidden for us. For us it can only be concept, something we accept in principle.

LG 16 is one of two reasons given for the ‘development ' of doctrine. The second excuse is Fr. Leonard Feeney. Both reasons are factually incorrect.

The Cardinal Ottaviani Letter of the Holy Office 1949 (Haec Suprrema) supported Fr. Leoand Feeney but the Jewish Left media reported the contrary. There was no clarification by the Archbishop of BOst0n, Cardinal Richard Cushing. The secular media repeated that the excommunication was for heresy.

Neither was there an apology from the Jesuits for expelling Fr. Feeney from the community.

The Haec Suprema referred to ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible ‘teaching .The text of the dogma indicates all Jews in Boston need to convert into the Catholic Church to avoid Hell. This was the teaching of Fr. Feeney. Sop how can he be in heresy? A Jesuit apology to Fr. Leonard Feeney’s communities is still overdue.

Also there is no Church Document which says Fr. Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for heresy. The Haec Suprema (published in the Denzinger Encridion) states the ex communication was for ‘disobedience’.

The priest who represented the Church, before the lifting of the ex communication, said in a pres Conference that Fr.Leona4rd Feeney was not asked to recant (Salvation Outside the Church? Sullivan, Paulist Press). He would still hold to the rigorist interpretation of the dogma.

Time showed that it was the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits who are in heresy.

So how can Urbaniana claim a ‘development of doctrine’ based on the case of Fr. Leonard Feeney?

Also how can an ex cathedra dogma (Cantate Domino, Council of Florence) be superseded by the ordinary Magisterium (Vatican Council II, Letter of the Holy Office 1949) even with a factually false interpretation?