LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949 WAS CRITICAL OF ARCHBISHOP RICHARD CUSHING

A religious believes that Fr. Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for heresy and cites these passages from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, the emphasis are his.

Bro.Ignatius Mary:
Letter of the Holy Office: This Supreme Sacred Congregation has followed very attentively the rise and the course of the grave controversy stirred up by certain associates of “St. Benedict Center” and “Boston College” in regard to the interpretation of that axiom: “Outside the Church there is no salvation.”

After having examined all the documents that are necessary or useful in this matter, among them information from your Chancery, as well as appeals and reports in which the associates of “St. Benedict Center” explain their opinions and complaints, and also many other documents pertinent to the controversy, officially collected, the same Sacred Congregation is convinced that the unfortunate controversy arose from the fact that the axiom, “outside the Church there is no salvation,” was not correctly understood and weighed,

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

Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.(Letter of the Holy Office 1949)

Lionel: Those 'who know' and do not enter the Church are oriented to Hell it is indicated in the Letter and also repeated in Vatican Council II . The issue is not 'those who know' or those who are in saved in invincible ignorance. Either way it is only known to God and only God can judge. The issue is that the dogma says every one with no exception on earth needs to convert into the Church for salvation. All non Catholics and non Christians are specified in the dogma. It’s not just those 'who know' or those who are in invincible ignorance. This would be judged only by Jesus.

The dogma,Fr. Leonard Feeney,many popes and saints say that all people with no exception on earth need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation and not just 'those who know'.Though they would agree that only 'those who know' are culpable. This teaching is repeated in Vatican Council II (LG 14, AG 7) which says all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation. It is repeated in  Dominus Iesus 20 which says though salvation is offered to all people to receive this salvation all need to enter the Church. This is Pope Pius XII ‘s message also here in the Letter, when he refers to ‘the dogma’. Fr.Leonard Feeney was in agreement with 'the dogma' which indicates every one needs to be a visible, explicit member of the Church for salvation. The dogma did not mention any exceptions. Neither did Fr.Leonard Feeney.

It was the Archbishop of Boston who considered those in invincible ignorance etc as exceptions to the dogma. When the Letter mentions only 'those who know' it is acknowledging the dejure,in principle cases of those who can be saved in invincible ignorance.Since they are in invincible ignorance 'they do not know' they can be saved.Those 'who know' and do not enter cannot be saved.

The Letter does not imply that those who do not know about Jesus and the Church are exceptions to the dogma. This was the false assumption of the Archbishop of Boston Richard Cushing.

The Letter does not support the Archbishop here.

Neither is it a criticism of Fr.Leonard Feeney since he was not saying that 'only those who know' can be saved. He was affirming the dogma which says all people need to convert into the Church and not just 'those who know'.(Cantate Domino, Council of Florence etc)

Letter of the Holy Office :In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man’s final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (, nn. 797, 807).

However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.

Lionel : Those who are saved with the baptism of desire are not exceptions to the dogma. There is no visible baptism of desire.The baptism of desire would have to be visible and explicit to be an exception to the dogmatic teaching. So this passage cannot be held against Fr.Leonard Feeney. It was the Archbishop of Boston who suggested that there was salvation outside the church and cited those with the baptism of desire. It was Cardinal Richard Cushing who assumed that the baptism of desire was an exception to the dogma. Fr.Feeney said the contrary. So this passage is a correction of the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits at Boston  College.

Letter of the Holy Office 1949 :These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.

Lionel: We can distinguish between those who 'are actually incorporated into the Church as members' and 'those who are united to the Church only by desire'.Those who are united to the Church by desire are known only in principle. This is a concept. It is accepted hypothetically, dejure. De facto we do not know any such case.So they do not contradict the dogma, they are not exceptions.

Implicitly or explicitly we do not know any case of those who are 'united to the Church only by desire'. This is a non issue raised by the Archbishop and the Jesuits in Boston.This passage is related to them and not to Fr.Leonard Feeney.

Note, the Letter here does not say that 'those who are united to the Church only by desire' are exceptions to the dogma. It was the Archbishop who implied this.

Letter of the Holy Office  1949: Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who “are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire,” and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition “in which they cannot be sure of their salvation” since “they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church”

Lionel: We do not know a single case in the present time of those who ‘are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire’. So it does not contradict the dogmatic teaching according to the popes, saints, Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center. It was the Archbishop and the Jesuits who suggested there were defacto exceptions to the dogma and Fr.Leonard Feeney. This passage is a reference to them and not to  Fr.Leonard Feeney.

Letter of the Holy Office 1949: From what has been said it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical , fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without.

The writings From the Housetops fascicle 3 refer to an article by Raymond Karam and not Fr.Leonard Feeney. Karam defended the salvation dogma.
-Lionel Andrades

IN ANALYSING THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949 YOU ARE USING A DEFACTO-DEJURE ANALYSIS OR A DEFACTO-DEFACTO ANALYSIS.WHETHER YOU KNOW IT OR NOT YOUR USING ONE OF THE TWO

The defacto-dejure analysis is not a new theology. It’s a philosophical way of looking at things. The defacto- dejure analysis is used in theology. It’s a rational way of analysis.It removes ambiguity. It clarifies for instance what is known, with what can be potentially known. It clarifies what is known in actuality (defacto) with what is known as a possibility (dejure).

When the defacto-dejure analysis is not used there could be confusion and the creation of a  false theology.

Whether we are aware of it or not, we could be using either the defacto-dejure analysis or the irrational defacto-defacto model.

St. Pius XII uses the standard defacto-dejure analysis in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. The secular media interprets the Letter with the defacto-defacto model. It seems irrational. It does not make sense.

For example:

De facto-dejure model

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 refers to the dogma and so says that everyone de facto needs to enter the Church for salvation and there are no defacto exceptions.

It also says de jure, in principle and known only to God, a non Catholic can be saved with the baptism of desire ‘in certain circumstances’ (Letter of the Holy Office 1949).

Defacto-defacto model

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 according to the secular media says every one de facto needs to enter the Church for salvation and there are de facto exceptions.

For the media and the liberals there are those who can be saved defacto with the baptism of desire which is defacto known to us.

If the defacto-dejure analysis is not used some Magisterial texts would appear odd e.g. CCC 1257.

Would the Catechism of the Catholic Church be saying that the church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water.Defacto every one needs the baptism of water given to adults with Catholic Faith. However God is not limited to the Sacraments. So there are some defacto, known cases on earth who can be saved in invincible ignorance or with the baptism of desire?! In actuality every one needs the baptism of water but also in actuality some people on earth do not need it and they are known to us.

Irrational!

The defacto-dejure analysis was was used in Vatican  Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church etc.It does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction.

-Lionel Andrades

USCCB, CCBEW, CATHOLIC ANSWERS, CUF IMPLY POPE PIUS XII SUGGESTED IN THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE THAT THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE WAS AN EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS

This is false. The letter refers to the dogma and indicates that de facto everyone needs to enter the Church and it also mentions that de jure a non Catholic can be saved with the baptism of desire. The Letter was critical of the Archbishop of Boston who indicated that those saved with the baptism of desire are defacto cases, known and visible. The Letter supports Fr. Leonard Feeney on doctrine.

For the baptism of desire to be an exception to the dogma outside the church there is no salvation it would have to be visible and known. Implicit unknown to us baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma which indicates every one must me a visible member of the Church.

The Letter mentions 'the dogma', 'the infallible statement' and  affirms the baptism of desire. It does not imply that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma since the baptism of desire is always implicit .God accepts an implicit desire he can also save someone in implicit invincible ignorance. So implicit baptism of desire or invincible ignorance cannot be an exception to the dogma. The dogma refers to all people needing to defacto enter the Catholic Church for salvation.

There are those who are members of the Church as taught by the dogma and there are those who are united to the Church only by desire. They are defacto members who have Catholic Faith and have received the baptism of water. Those who have received the baptism of desire are de jure in principle united to the Church only by desire. These cases are known only to God.

The Letter of the Holy Office during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII was addressed to the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing directly and not to Fr. Leonard Feeney.

It was because the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits, who implied wrongly, that these cases could be exceptions to the dogma and to Fr. Leonard Feeney.  

 It was the Archbishop who believed like the Jesuits at Boston College that every one with no exception does not have to enter the Church for salvation. The Archbishop believed that there could be non Catholics saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance. Implying, of course, that these cases are visible, explicit and known to us and so are an exception to the dogma.

The Letter affirms ‘the dogma’ as did Fr. Leonard Feeney. The dogma does not mention any exceptions and neither does Fr. Leonard Feeney. The Letter seems to refer to the issue of the baptism of desire being implied as an exception to the dogma. It is only in reference to the error of the Archbishop and the Jesuits at Boston College.

The Letter like Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents uses the defacto- dejure analysis. The Archbishop and the Jesuits used the clumsy defacto- defacto analysis and contradicted the Principle of Non Contradiction. How could they imply that everyone de facto needs to enter the Church for salvation but some people do not de facto need to enter the Church ?!

To imply that the thrice defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus has visible exceptions is heresy. It is a rejectiion of the dogma as it was interpreted for centuries. It is creating a new doctrine.

This error of the visible baptism of desire being a defacto exception to the dogma and Fr. Leonard Feeney is being maintained by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in the Fr. Peter Phan Notification. They have used the mantra ‘except for those in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire’. The error is also held on the websites by the Conference of Catholic Bishops of England and Wales (CCBEW) ,Catholic Answers, Catholics United for the Faith and so many other Catholics. They assume innocently that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma. They wrongly imply that this was taught by Pope Pius XII.
-Lionel Andrades

DID THE CARDINAL WHO ISSUED THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949 ASSUME THAT THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE WAS VISIBLE AND AN EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/11/did-cardinal-who-issued-letter-of-holy.html

DID THE CARDINAL WHO ISSUED THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949 ASSUME THAT THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE WAS VISIBLE AND AN EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA ?

For the baptism of desire to be an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus it would have to be visible and known. Implicit, only-known-to God baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma which indicates every one must me a visible member of the Church.
 
The Letter mentions the dogma the infallible statement (1). It then affirms the baptism of desire (2).Then is it being implied that the baptism of desire  is an exception to the dogma? (3).God accepts an implicit desire he can also save someone in invincible ignorance.(4) So ? Is it being implied that being saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance is an exception to the dogma ?


There are those who are members of the Church as taught by the dogma  and there are those who are united to the Church only by desire.(5) Do we know any case of someone unted to the Church only by desire? Do we know any such case who is a member of the Church in the present time? No. Can such a case be an explicit exception to the dogma teaching that every one needs to convert into the Church for salvation? If  we do not know any such case how can there be an exception.
 
So why mention in it in the Letter ? It was because the Archbishop and the Jesuits implied that these cases could be exceptions to the dogma.
 
Interestingly the Letter of the Holy Office was addressed to the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing who believed like the Jesuits at Boston College that every one with no exception does not have to enter the Church for salvation. For Fr.Leonard Feeney this was a conscience issue (6). The Archbishop  believed that  there could be non Catholics saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance. Implying, of course, that these cases are visible, explicit and known to us and so are an exception to the dogma.

The Letter affirms the dogma as did Fr.Leonard Feeney. The dogma does not mention any exceptions and neither does Fr.Leonard Feeney. The Letter seems to refer to the issue of the  baptism of desire being implied as an exception to the dogma.


To imply that this defined dogma has visible exceptions is heresy. It is a rejecting of  the dogma as it was interpreted for centuries.

-Lionel Andrades
_________________________________________

1.
Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.

However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949

2.
In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man’s final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (, nn. 797, 807).

In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man’s final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (, nn. 797, 807).

3.
The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.

4.
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.



5.
These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.

Discussing the members of which the Mystical Body is-composed here on earth, the same august Pontiff says: “Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.”
6.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1949/10/29/father-feeney-is-dismissed-from-jesuit/

CONFUSION OVER THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949

Cardinal Richard J.Cushing issued a decree against Fr.Leonard Feeney stating that because of 'grave offense against the laws of the Catholic Church'… (April 18, 1949).

Grave offense against the laws of the Catholic Church ?

What offense did he commit?

Then in 1953 the Holy Office decree states ‘The Holy Office has been obliged repeatedly to make your teaching…the object of its special care and attention…'

Fr.Leonard Feeney’s teaching ? What was Fr.Feeney’s teaching which were ‘against the laws of the Catholic Church’.

Where is the text of this heretical teaching ?

No where!! It is unamed. A mystery.

The decree refers to ‘the dogma’. There are three defined dogmas on extra ecclesiam nulla salus. All three agree with Fr.Leonard Feeney.

The three dogmas http://catholicism.org/category/outside-the-church-there-is-no-salvation on extra ecclesiam nulla salus state as does Fr.Leonard Feeney that every one needs to be a visible member of the Church for salvation i.e every one needs Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.

They do not mention any exceptions as the baptism of desire etc since it is known that they are always implicit and not exceptions to the dogma. This was also Fr. Leonard Feeney's teaching.

So how could he be excommunicated for heresy ?

The Letter of the Holy Office does not specifically say that he was excommunicated for heresy it mentions disobedience. One has to assume that he was excommunicated for heresy.

When the Archbishop implies that there are visible cases of non Catholics who are saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire and this is a contradiction to the dogma and Fr.Leonard  Feeney one has to assume that this is ecclesiastical heresy. The Letter does not mention it.-Lionel Andrades

REMEMBER THAT THE REPORT BY FR.WILLIAM MOST ON EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS IS NOT THE OFFICIAL TEACHING OF THE CHURCH: IT CONTAINS ERRORS AND HERESY

I was trying to explain to a Catholic religious yesterday that the report allegedly that of the late Fr.William Most was not the official teaching of the Church it contains errors and heresy. It contradicts magisterial documents and is a calumny of a priest Leonard Feeney of Boston.(1)

What the disobedient Feeney said amounted to this: he insisted that all who did not formally enter the Church would go to hell…Further, all adults who did not formally enter the Church - get their names on a parish register - would also go to hell, even if they never had a chance to hear there was a Church, e.g., those in the western hemisphere during the long centuries before Columbus. Therefore Feeney consigned literally millions upon millions to hell, even though He gave them no chance. TRAGIC ERRORS OF LEONARD FEENEY by Fr. William Most -

Fr.William Most indicates that the unbaptized in the Western hemisphere before the arrival of Columbas were all saved without the baptism of water and Catholic Faith. Being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) is the ordinary means of salvation for him, or the writer of this report. Also, Catholic Faith and the baptism of water (LG14, AG 7) was not the ordinary means of salvation for the Native Americans before the missionaries arrived there.LG 16 is not the ordinary means of salvation?!

Is this not rejecting the Nicene Creed in which we pray ‘I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin.’ The baptism of water is needed to forgive Original Sin, the stain of Adam. Through baptism, given to adults with Catholic Faith, we accept Jesus’ Sacrifice and salvation from Hell.

Fr.William Most mentions that the Church teaches that a person can be saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire implying that this contradicts the dogma. Where is the Church document, which says those saved in invincible ignorance or with the baptism of desire are explicitly known to us and so contradict the dogma?

Redemptoris Missio n.55 says it must be remembered in inter religious dialogue that the Catholic Church is the 'ordinary means' of salvation. So it is not paganism and non Catholic religions as the report would affirm. This is a denial of a basic Catholic teaching.

The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Church Councils, popes and saints agree with Fr.Leonard Feeney. Yet this report implies invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are explicitly known and so exceptions to the dogma.Then the report falsely claims that the priest Leonard Feeney was in error for denying a teaching of the Catholic Church.

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 mentions those who can be saved ‘in certain circumstances’ with the baptism of desire. It does not say that this contradicts ‘the dogma’ or ‘the infallible teaching’ to which the Letter also refers. The report interprets the popes and Church Fathers as referring to those saved in general with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance.

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 referred to 'the dogma', the infallible teaching'. The dogma Cantate Domino, Council of Florence tells us that every one needs to be a visible member of the Church. The dogma does not mention explicit baptism of desire or invincible ignorance. So how could Fr. Feeney be in error for saying the same thing as the dogma ?

There is no Church document which says invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are defacto known to us in personal cases. Neither does any Magisterial text claim that these are ‘exceptions’ to the dogma.Yet this is suggested by the report.

If the baptism of desire was not dejure, accepted only in principle, and if instead it was de facto and known to us, in personal cases, then the Letter of the Holy Office would contradict itself.This is what the report suggests.It means Pope Pius XII says every one de facto needs to enter the Church (as mentioned in 'the dogma' ) but some people can also be defacto saved with the baptism of desire etc 'in certain circumstances'(Letter of the Holy Office).

De facto every non Catholic needs to enter the Church for salvation and there are no exceptions.( LG 14, AG 7, Cantate Domino, Dominus Iesus 20, CCC 845, 846 etc).

Since invincible ignorance is implicit, we accept it only in principle (de jure). It is not an exception to the dogma.It is a possibility known to God but not an exception to the dogma. For Fr.William Most these are exceptions.

The report says Fr.Leonard Feeney was old so out of pity the excommunication was lifted. This is false. It can be seen from the report by Peter Vere Canon Lawyer who spoke to the priest who initiated the lifting of the excommunication. Fr. Leonard Feeney was not required to recant.

http://www.catholicism.org/downloads/Peter_Vere_SBC.pdf

Where does Fr.William Most mention that there is a dejure-defacto pattern in magisterial texts ? Did he notice it?He did not use a dejure-defacto analysis of magisterial texts including the Letter of the Holy Office ?

Neither did he mention the Principle of Non Contradiction when interpreting the Church Fathers , the Letter of the Holy Office or Vatican Council II ? His report is contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction.

He never considered that Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits at Boston College were in heresy for suggesting that there was an explicitly known baptism of desire and it contradicted an ‘infallible statement’ ?

He does not mention how a visible baptism of desire can be an exception to a defined dogma as he suggests ?Without the defacto-dejure analysis there is ambiguity in this report.

The report fails to mention that Fr.Leonard Feeney was not in heresy and yet the Archbishop of Boston Richard Cushing issued a decree against him and St. Benedict Center .The Letter of the Holy Office no where says he was excommunicated for heresy. One has to assume, imply and believe it was for heresy.

The report indicates that Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma as Fr.Leonard Feeney understood it and as it is expressed by the communites of Fr. Leonard Feeney today who are recognized by the Catholic Church. Some have been granted canonical status in the diocese of Worcester,USA. They hold the same interpretation on the dogma extra eclesiam nulla salus as did Fr.Leonard Feeney.

-Lionel Andrades

1.


http://www.ewtn.com/library/scriptur/feeney.txt

CARDINAL RATZINGER DID NOT VIOLATE THE PRINCIPLE OF NON CONTRADICTION AS CATHOLICS UNITED FOR THE FAITH IMPLY

The Catechism of the Catholic Church uses the defacto-dejure analysis and not an interpretation contrary to reason.

Catholics United for the Faith (CUF) says on their website (1) that every one needs the baptism of water but God is not restricted to the Sacraments. They imply that everyone in the present times does not need the baptism of water for salvation. These cases in the present time do not need the baptism of water given to adults with Catholic Faith. This would mean defacto, in reality in the year 2011 every one  does need the baptism of water for salvation (CCC 1257) however some people, de facto, in reality do not need the baptism of water for salvation.

Every one needs it but some people on earth do not need it – this is a contradiction.

They are implying that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger violated the Principle of Non Contradiction.

When it is implied that everyone in the present times de facto needs the baptism of water and some people do not defacto need it , this is a teaching contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction.

It is not contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction when it is assumed that everyone de facto needs the baptism of water for salvation and some people in the present times in principle, de jure , can be saved without the baptism of water.

It is not a contradiction to say that everyone needs the baptism of water for salvation, this is an actuality, and to also say that some non Catholics’ in certain circumstances’( Letter of the Holy Office 1949) can be saved without the baptism of water and it would be known only to God, this is a possibility.

Since one is an actuality and the other a possibility it does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction.

Since the possibility, is only hypothetical , an assumption, we do not know anyone in 2011 who does not need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation.

The ‘dogma’ Pope Pius XII referred to as ‘the infallible teaching’ in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 indicates that de facto everyone needs to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation. The thrice defined dogma does not mention any de facto cases of non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance, the baptism of water etc.

Similarly Vatican Council II indicates that all de facto need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation and those saved in principle, de jure, in invincible ignorance are known only to God.

So Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not contradict the ancient teaching on extra ecclesiam nulla salus. There was and is, only one interpretation of the dogma. This was clear to the saints and the popes over the centuries.

-Lionel Andrades

1.

Without the Church There is No Salvation,
Faith Facts, THE ANSWERS YOU NEED,Apologetics, webiste of Catholics United for the Faith.
http://www.cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=146

CATHOLICS UNITED FOR THE FAITH IMPLIES THOSE SAVED WITH THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE ARE VISIBLE,FR.LEONARD FEENEY WAS EXCOMMUNICATED FOR AFFIRMING THE SAME TEACHING AS SAINTS AND POPES

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/11/catholics-united-for-faith-implies.html#links

CATHOLICS UNITED FOR THE FAITH IMPLIES THOSE SAVED WITH THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE ARE VISIBLE,FR.LEONARD FEENEY WAS EXCOMMUNICATED FOR AFFIRMING THE SAME TEACHING AS SAINTS AND POPES

The dogma outside the church there is no salvation is not meant to allow exclusivism states Catholics United for the Faith, Steubenville, USA.(1) They do no refer to the ‘dogma’ but to the ‘phrase’ and imply that those saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the teaching of the dogma.

It is contradictory when Catholics United for the Faith implies:

Every one needs to be an explicit, visible member of the Church (de facto) for salvation and non Catholics in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are defacto saved without the baptism of water and it is known to us.

It is not contradictory if they say:

Defacto every one with no exception needs to enter the Church as taught by ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible statement’. (Letter of the Holy Office 1949 during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII).De jure a person can be saved with the baptism of desire. (Letter of the Holy Office 1949 during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII)

It is contradictory when they imply:

De facto all people need to enter the Catholic Church with the baptism of water and Catholic Faith for salvation. (Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium 14, Ad Gentes 7).De facto some people can be saved in invincible ignorance. (Lumen Gentium 16).It is not contradictory when they imply:De facto all people need to enter the Catholic Church with the baptism of water and Catholic Faith for salvation. (Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium 14, Ad Gentes7).De jure some people can be saved in invincible ignorance. (Lumen Gentium 16).

Due to the contradiction in the interpretation of magisterial texts they seem to be saying that those saved with the baptism of desire are visible and so are an exception to the dogma. The dogma indicates everyone needs to be an explicit, visible member of the church to go to Heaven.

If the baptism of desire was implicit for them it would not contradict the dogma, it would not be an exception. Since it is allegedly explicitly known, it is an exception to the dogma. It is an error to imply that those saved with the baptism of desire as being de facto known to us.

Some of the CUF members also believe Fr. Leonard Feeney was ‘condemned’ for holding the same view as the popes, including Pope Pius XII, who referred to 'the dogma', the saints and the dogma itself. They assume that Fr. Leonard Feeney said that there are no exceptions to the dogma and that the baptism of desire etc are not exceptions. For them the baptism of desire is defacto and explicitly known to us and so Fr. Leonard Feeney was wrong. So were the popes and saints.

(a) No one knows of a particular case of someone being saved with the baptism of desire even though it is being assumed as being visible (b) Fr. Leonard Feeney was not excommunicated for repeating the same teaching of the popes, Councils, saints and the thrice-defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They were all saying that de facto every adult needs Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation. They did not consider the baptism of desire as explicit but knew that it was always implicit.

CUF implies that Vatican Council II has changed our concept of Church since those saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) etc are visible and de facto known to us in the present times.This is a new ecclesiology with no basis in Vatican Council II and contrary to the dogma Cantate Domino, Council of Florence.

Here are extracts from the CUF article:

CUF: Pius IX clearly expressed the full teaching a century ago. His writing distinguishes between those who are invincibly ignorant and those who have wilfully separated themselves from the Catholic Church:

There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion...Also well-known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved [without] the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior (no. 7).

Lionel: Yes there are those who can be saved in invincible ignorance and these are not exceptions to the dogma, they are not contradictory to the teaching that every one with no exception needs to be a visible, explicit member of the Catholic Church to avoid the fires of Hell.

CUF: This teaching of Christ and His Church is not meant to allow indifferentism or exclusivism.

Lionel: The dogma indicates that there is exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church.

CUF: Baptism and unity with the Catholic Church provide the only assurance of salvation, but not the only means. "God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but He Himself is not bound by His sacraments" (Catechism, no. 1257, original emphasis).

Lionel: God has bound salvation to the baptism of water and unity with the Catholic Church, true. This is the only means. Since those who are saved with the baptism of desire etc are known only to God and we do not know if there is a single case in the present times on earth. Neither can we administer the baptism of desire to anyone. So the only means for salvation on earth is Catholic Faith with the baptism of water.

CUF:

Because God is not bound by the sacraments, He makes the grace of salvation available to all in ways unknown to us. This is the basis for the Church’s teaching on "Baptism of desire" (cf. Catechism, nos. 1258-60, 1281). This occurs, for example, when one seeks Baptism but dies first, or when one dies without explicit knowledge of Christ, but would have embraced the truth had it been presented. Only God can judge their souls.

Lionel: True and this does not mean that there are any such known cases in the present times or that these are exceptions to the dogma Cantate Domino,Council of Florence.

CUF: Without the Church There is No Salvation

ISSUE: What does the Catholic Church mean by the phrase, "Outside the Church there is no salvation" (extra ecclesiam nulla salus)?

RESPONSE: All salvation comes through Jesus Christ, the one Savior of the world (cf. Acts 4:12). His Holy Spirit dispenses those graces through His body, the Church. "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Lk. 10:16).

Lionel: All salvation comes through Jesus Christ, true. And this salvation is available only in the Catholic Church. In the present times only those who are members of the Catholic Church are on the way to salvation.We do not know any case of someone saved in the non Catholic religions or Christian Churches and communities in the present time.

CUF: This examination will reveal that the phrase was not formulated to express who would go to heaven and who would go to hell, for only God will judge that. Rather, the phrase expresses an understanding of the Church in relation to her role in the salvation of the world.

Lionel: The dogma indicates millions of non Catholics are oriented to Hell. We personally cannot say in particular that a person is in Hell but the dogma, Scripture and Tradition tell us that certain actions lead to Hell.

CUF: On the other hand, many of the Fathers did write about those who were invincibly ignorant of the Gospel. Of these, the Fathers accepted that salvation was open to them, even if in a mysterious way. The Fathers recognized that the natural law of justice and virtue is written on the hearts of all men. Those who respect this law respect the Lawgiver, though they do not know Him. As St. Justin Martyr wrote in the second century.

Lionel: The Church Fathers mentioned those who can be saved in invincible ignorance .They nowhere claim that we can judge for sure who has been saved in this condition. They accept it as a possibility known to God.

Neither do they say that this is an exception to all people needing Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation. CUF assumes the Church Fathers consider invincible ignorance as an exception. One has to imply that those saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma.

CUF: Boniface VIII wrote concerning the nature of the Church and the supremacy of the Pope. He did not write concerning the damnation of those who have never heard the Gospel.

Lionel: Cantate Domino, Council of Florence is specific on this subject and mentions the damnation of Christians and non Christians who do not convert into the Church.CUF omits any reference to Cantate Domino.

-Lionel Andrades

1.

Without the Church There is No Salvation,

Faith Facts, THE ANSWERS YOU NEED,

Apologetics, webiste of Catholics United for the Faith.
http://www.cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=146

ECCLESSIOLOGY OF ENGLISH BISHOPS HIT BY TWO ERRORS 1) VISIBLE BAPTISM OF DESIRE 2) FR.LEONARD FEENEY EXCOMMUNICATED FOR THE SAME VIEW AS POPES, SAINTS AND DOGMA OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION

English bishops use an interpretation of Magisterial texts which contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction as taught to Catholic seminarians.

It is assumed by the bishops that those saved among Christians and non Christians, in invincible ignorance, the baptism of desire, a good conscience, with ‘the seeds of the Word’ or in imperfect communion with the Church, are known to us in the present times and this is the ordinary way of salvation. They imply that this is an exception to the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation. So Protestants just have to believe in Jesus and they are saved in their religion through this ordinary means.This is a rejection of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II (Lumen Gentium 14, Ad Gentes 7).Vatican Council II indicates that the ordinary means of salvation is Catholic Faith and the baptism of water (LG 14, AG 7).

It is contradictory for the bishops to say:

De facto every one needs to be an explicit, visible member of the Church of salvation and defacto non Catholics in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire can be saved without the baptism of water.

It is not contradictory when they say:

Defacto every one with no exception needs to enter the Church as taught by ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible statement’.(Letter of the Holy Office 1949 during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII)

De jure a person can be saved with the baptism of desire.(Letter of the Holy Office 1949 during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII)

It is contradictory when they believe:

De facto all people need to enter the Catholic Church with the baptism of water and Catholic Faith for salvation.(Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium 14, Ad Gentes 7).

De facto some people can be saved in invincible ignorance.(Lumen Gentium 16).

It is not contradictory when they believe:

De facto all people need to enter the Catholic Church with the baptism of water and Catholic Faith for salvation. (Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium 14,Ad Gentes7).

De jure some people can be saved in invincible ignorance.(Lumen Gentium 16).

English bishops use an interpretation of Magisterial texts which contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction as taught to Catholic seminarians.It is contradictory to common sense , even a lay man can notice, to imply that those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are de facto known to us

Due to the contradiction in the interpretation young candidates with a religious vocation in England have to say everyone needs to enter the Church for salvation in the present times but there could be defacto exceptions like those saved with the baptism of desire. The baptism of desire is assumed to be visible and so is an exception to the dogma.The dogma indicates everyone needs to be an explicit, visible member of the church to go to Heaven.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/11/vocation-director-in-southwarkengland.html

If the baptism of desire was implicit for candidates it would not contradict the dogma, it would not be an exception. Since it is allegedly explicitly known, it is an exception to the dogma. It is an error for the bishops to interpret those saved with the baptism of desire as being de facto known to us.

Candidates with a religious vocation in England would also have to accept that Fr. Leonard Feeney was ‘condemned’ for holding the same view as the popes, including Pope Pius XII, who referred to 'the dogma', the saints and the dogma itself. Since the bishops assume that Fr.Leonard Feeney said that there are no exceptions to the dogma and that the baptism of desire etc are not exceptions. For the bishops the baptism of desire is defacto and explicitly known to us and so Fr.Leonard Feeney was wrong. So were the popes and saints.

(a) No one knows of a particular case of someone being saved with the baptism of desire even though it is being assumed as being visible (b) Fr.Leonard Feeney was not excommunicated for repeating the same teaching of the popes, Councils, saints and the thrice-defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They were all saying that de facto every adult needs Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation. They did not consider the baptism of desire as explicit but knew that it was always implicit.

They imply that Vatican Council II has changed our concept of Church since those saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) etc are visible and de facto known to us in the present times.

-Lionel Andrades

CATHOLIC BISHOPS CONFERENCE OF ENGLAND AND WALES SAYS THOSE SAVED WITH THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE, INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE ARE VISIBLE TO US

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/11/catholic-bishops-conference-of-england.html

ECUMENISM OF THE ENGLISH BISHOPS CONTRARY TO VATICAN COUNCIL II

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/11/ecumenism-of-english-bishops-contrary.html#links

ECUMENISM OF THE ENGLISH BISHOPS CONTRARY TO VATICAN COUNCIL II

According to the Home Mission Briefing on the website of the Conference of Catholic Bishops of England and Wales(1) there is a joint mission program with the liberal Protestant World Council of Churches.(2)

The English bishops who teach that those saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance are visible to us (3) are suggesting that Christians, do not have to convert into the Catholic Church to avoid Hell. (Lumen Gentium 14, Ad Gentium 7, dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Cantate Domino Council of Florence etc).

Vatican Council II says all Christians need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation. (4)

The Ecumenism policy of the English bishops is contrary to the Magisterium of the Church. It is a refutation of Catholic Tradition and the Church’s interpretation of the Bible.They have been evangelised by the Protestants.

They are unable to state that Vatican Council II and the dogma Outside the Church there is no Salvation teaches that all Protestants and Orthodox Christians are oriented to the fires of Hell unless they convert into the Catholic Church.

According to the Catholic Bishops, Protestants and other Christians can be saved in invincible ignorance etc just as in inter religious dialogue with non Christians it is assumed by the bishops that those saved in invincible ignorance among non Christians  are known to us in the present times.They imply that this is an exception to the dogma.This is the rejection of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II (Lumen Gentium 14, Ad Gentes 7).

Young Catholics in England would have to say that everyone needs to enter the Church for salvation in the present times but there could be defacto exceptions like those saved with the baptism of desire. The baptism of desire is assumed to be visible and so is an exception to the dogma.The dogma indicates everyone needs to be an explicit, visible member of the church to go to Heaven.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/11/vocation-director-in-southwarkengland.html

If the baptism of desire was implicit for candidates it would not contradict the dogma, it would not be an exception. Since it is allegedly explicitly known, it is an exception to the dogma. Candidates with a religious vocation would be accepted who presumably could 'spot' these rare exceptional cases.Those who cannot do so will not be able to priests and nuns.

So candidates with a religious vocation in England would also have to accept also that Fr. Leonard Feeney was ‘condemned’ for holding the same view as the popes, including Pope Pius XII, who referred to 'the dogma', the saints and the dogma itself.


This is the teaching of the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales on Ecumenism and inter faith dialogue. This is their policy when accepting candidates with a religious vocation and in teaching at Pontifical seminaries in Rome,the English and Beda College.

This new visible baptism of desire doctrine contradicts magisterial documents.It is also irrational. (a) No one knows of a particular case of someone being saved with the baptism of desire and (b) Fr.Leonard Feeney was not excommunicated for repeating the same teaching of the popes, Councils, saints and the thrice-defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.-Lionel Andrades

___________________________________________


1.Adult Formation and Catechesis.Home Mission Briefing June 2010. Ecumenism

2..http://www.oikoumene.org/en/programmes/unity-mission-evangelism-and-spirituality/mission-and-unity.html

3..http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/11/catholic-bishops-conference-of-england.html

4.Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church.-Lumen Gentium 14

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


CATHOLIC LAY PROFESSOR AT UNIVERSITA EUROPA DI ROMA AFFIRMS DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/10/catholic-lay-professor-at-universita.html

LEGIONARY OF CHRIST PRIEST FR.RAFAEL PASCUAL AFFIRMS CANTATE DOMINO, COUNCIL OF FLORENCE

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/10/legionary-of-christ-priest-frrafael.html

FR.TULLIO ROTONDO AFFIRMS CANTATE DOMINO, COUNCIL OF FLORENCE ON EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/08/frtullio-rotondo-affirms-cantate-domino.html#links

CANTATE DOMINO, COUNCIL OF FLORENCE ON EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS IS DE FIDE AND NOT CONTRADICTED BY VATICAN COUNCIL II- Fr. Nevus Marcello O.P

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/07/cantate-domino-council-of-florence-on.html

BRAZILIAN PRIEST SAYS VATICAN COUNCIL II DOES NOT CONTRADICT DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/07/brazilian-priest-says-vatican-council.html#links

CATHOLIC PRIESTS IN ROME AGREE WITH FR.LEONARD FEENEY: THERE IS NO BAPTISM OF DESIRE THAT WE CAN KNOW OF

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/08/catholic-priests-in-rome-agree-with.html#links

DAPHNE MCLEOD’S COMMENT SHOULD BE A WAKE UP CALL FOR SSPX, TRADITIONALISTS AND ENGLISH BISHOPS

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/10/daphne-mcleods-comment-should-be-wake.html#links

CATHOLIC BISHOPS CONFERENCE OF ENGLAND AND WALES SAYS THOSE SAVED WITH THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE, INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE ARE VISIBLE TO US

Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated it is suggested for repeating the same teaching of the popes, Councils, saints and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus thrice-defined.

The Bishops Conference of England and Wales has placed the book Muslims Ask, Christian answer in the section Resources, on its website. (Dialogue With Other Religions/Committee for Relations with other Other Religions). This book by the Jesuit Christian Troll interprets Vatican Council II (LG 16) as referring to cases of invincible ignorance being explicit and known to us. LG 16 contradicts the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/10/bishops-conference-of-england-and-wales.html

 It means every one needs to enter the Church for salvation in the present times but there could be exceptions like those saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16). Cases of those saved in invincible ignorance it is assumed are visible to us and so they are an exception to the dogma.The dogma indicates everyone needs to be an explicit, visible member of the church to go to Heaven.

If those saved in invincible ignorance were implicit for the English bishops it would not contradict the dogma.It would not be an exception. Since it is allegedly explicitly known, it is an exception to the dogma.

So in inter religious dialogue it is assumed by the CBCEW that those saved in invincible ignorance are known to us in the present times.Those who have not had the Gsopel preached to them through no fault of their own and are saved are known to us in the present time ?!

In another report on the website of the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales titled Catholics and Other Faiths the error is repeated. Archbishop Emeritus Kevin McDonald of Southwark who is the Chair of the Committe for Relations with Other Religions states that  the ‘seeds of the Word’ are present in other religions(1).Theoretically, as a possibility this is acceptable. However the bishop is  implying that we know of particular cases so every non Catholic with no exception does not have to enter the Church for salvation.He is implying that this is an exception to the dogma.This is the rejection of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II (Lumen Gentium 14, Ad Gentes 7).

Similarly the Vocation Director of Southwark, England Fr. Stephen Langley has said that candidates with a religious vocation to the diocese would have to accept the doctrine extra ecclesiam nulla salus but the doctrine should not be interpreted in 'the narrow Feenyite sense’.

Young Catholics in England would have to say that everyone needs to enter the Church for salvation in the present times but there could be defacto exceptions like those saved with the baptism of desire. The baptism of desire is assumed to be visible and so is an exception to the dogma.The dogma indicates everyone needs to be an explicit, visible member of the church to go to Heaven.

If the baptism of desire was implicit for candidates it would not contradict the dogma, it would not be an exception. Since it is allegedly explicitly known, it is an exception to the dogma. Candidates with a religious vocation would be accepted who presumably could 'spot' these rare exceptional cases.Those who cannot do so will not be able to priests and nuns. 

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/11/vocation-director-in-southwarkengland.html

The Vocation Director at Southwark also has implied that the Catholic Church has condemned the ‘narrow Feenyite sense’. However there is no ‘condemnation’ mentioned in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. Pope Pius XII in the Letter of the Holy Office referred to ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible statement’. The dogma like the popes, Church Councils and saints indicate that all non Catholics in Boston,USA need to convert into the Catholic Church to avoid the fires of Hell. This was exactly the teaching of Fr. Leonard Feeney who was not excommunicated for heresy but for disobedience. The excommunication was lifted by the Church without him having to recant.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/25059967/Peter-Vere-Canon-Lawyer-on-the-status-of-those-who-hold-Fr-Leonard-Feeney-s-Doctrinal-Position

So candidates with a religious vocation in England would have to accept also that Fr. Leonard Feeney was ‘condemned’ for holding the same view as the popes, including Pope Pius XII, who referred to 'the dogma', the saints and the dogma itself.

This is the teaching of the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales in inter faith dialogue, for candidates with religious vocations and at the Catholic seminaries in Rome like the English and Beda College.

This new visible baptism of desire doctrine contradicts magisterial documents.It is also  irrational. (a) No one knows of a particular case of someone being saved with the baptism of desire and (b) Fr.Leonard Feeney was not excommunicated for repeating the same teaching of the popes, Councils, saints and the thrice-defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

-Lionel Andrades

1.

As Catholics we believe that Christ lived, died and rose from the dead for all people and thatGod’s plan of love embraces the whole of creation. We can joyfully accept ,as was recognized by the Fathers of the Church,that other religions contain elements of truth that we find in Christ.The Fathers of the Church called these elements “seeds of the Word”.The Vatican Council II attributed the positive values present in other religious traditons to the actibe presence of God through through his Word,pointing also to the universal action of the Spirit “at work in the world before Christ was glorified”.(Ad Gentes n.4).-Catholics and Other Faiths report on the website of the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales

BISHOPS CONFERENCE OF ENGLAND AND WALES SAYS LUMEN GENTIUM 16 REFERS TO EXPLICITLY KNOWN CASES OF NON CATHOLIC SAVED IN INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/10/bishops-conference-of-england-and-wales.html

Archbishop Emeritus Kevin McDonald of Southwark implies the 'seeds of the Word' in other religions is the ordinary means of salvation and these exceptions are explicitly known

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/11/archbishop-emeritus-kevin-mcdonald-of.html

NON CATHOLICS CAN BE SAVED IN INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE, BAPTISM OF DESIRE AND IT DOES NOT CONTRADICT THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS- Daphne McLeod, Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice, England

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/10/non-catholics-can-be-saved-in.html

CATHOLIC HERALD, DAILY TELEGRAPH CENSORSHIP OF THE DOGMA CONTROVERSY: NO ADS ACCEPTED

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/11/catholic-herald-daily-telegraph.html