TRADITIONALIST AND NOVUS ORDO PRIESTS IN SOUTHWARD,U.K ASSUME INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE AND IMPLICIT DESIRE ARE KNOWN EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOGMA

Fr.Tim Finigan a Traditionalist priest in Southwark, England  is unable to say with confidence that he does not know anyone on earth saved with the Baptism of desire and invincible ignorance. Since he assumes that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 says that the baptism of desire is an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma.

Neither are other priests in the diocese of Southwark who offer the Novus Ordo Mass able to provide the answer- even though it is common knowledge that we do not know anyone saved on earth in invincible ignorance or an implicit desire.

With reference to the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 there are two possibilities. The Letter says:

1. Implicit desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are explicitly known and so contradict the literal interpretation of the dogma.There is confusion on this point in the Letter.

2. Implicit desire  and being saved in invincible ignorance are known only implicitly, we do not know any explicit case. So it does not contradict the literal interpretation of  the dogma .

 If the  priests in  Southwark would realize that implicit desire etc can only be implicit, then the Letter of the Holy Office would not contradict ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible statement’( Letter of  the Holy Office 19549). If implicit desire was explicit and we knew these cases on earth,saved, then implicit desire and invincible ignorance  are explicit exceptions tot ‘the dogma’ and the so the Letter of the Holy Office e1949 made a mistake.

Presently priests from  Southwak are saying that the  Holy Office made a mistake buy endorsing ‘the dogma, ‘the infallible teaching’. The  text of the dogma is the literal interpretation  of  extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It is in agreement with the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.

Fr. Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for  disobedience to ‘ecclesial authority’ and not for heresy. The Church did not ask him to recant  before the lifting of  the excommunication.

 So when the Letter refers  to the dogma it is referring to Fr. Leonardf Feeney's understanding of the of the dogma. The dogma does not mention any exceptions since the baptism of  desire etc can  only be accepted in principle. This was the teaching the Catholic Church for centuries. If the Letter of the Holy Office assumes that implicit desire is explicit then it is a mistake.

-Lionel Andrades

CANDIDATES WITH A RELIGIOUS VOCATION IN ENGLAND HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS VISIBLE TO THEM

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2011/11/candidates-with-religious-vocation-in.html

UK BISHOPS AGREE WITH SOUTHWARK VOCATION REPORT ? : BAPTISM OF DESIRE CASES VISIBLE

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/11/uk-bishops-agree-with-southwark.html#links

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

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/11/usccb-ccbew-catholic-answers-cuf-imply.html#links

CONFUSION OVER THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/11/confusion-over-letter-of-holy-office.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 ?

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/11/did-cardinal-who-issued-letter-of-holy.html

The Latin Mass Society Conference in London speakers in confusion; SSPX could be letting another chance go by

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/05/latin-mass-society-conference-in-london.html#links

From Fr.Tim Finigan's blog The Hermeneutic of Continuity : If we assume that every one does not need to be incorprated into the Church as an actual member then it is a mistake

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/05/from-frtim-finigans-blog-hermeneutic-of.html

Fr.Tim Finigan on The Hermeneutic of Continuity responds on extra ecclesiam nulla salus - 2

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/05/frtim-finigan-responds-on-extra.html

Fr.Tim Finigan on The Hermeneutic of Continuity responds on extra eclesiam nulla salus

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/05/frtim-finigan-on-hermeneutic-of.html

DID THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949, THE MAGISTERIUM, MAKE A MISTAKE? NO

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/05/did-letter-of-holy-office-1949.html

SSPX’S BASIC ERROR IS IN ECCLESIOLOGY : VATICAN COUNCIL II IS A TRADITIONALIST DOCUMENT

The Society of St.Pius X(SSPX) assumes that Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The error is with the SSPX and it is in  ecclesiology. Their  concept of church has changed and it is the same as the liberals since they believe that those saved in invincible ignorance etc are known explicitly to us and so are exceptions to the dogma. The church is no more ecclesiocentric for them. The fault is not with Vatican Council II but with them.

If the SSPX has the humility to admit its error Vatican Council II would emerge as a traditionalist Council for them.

• If cases of invincible ignorance and being saved with a good conscience are known to them on earth then LG 16 contradicts the dogma on salvation. Then Vatican Council II contradicts extra ecclesiam nulla salus . 

• If cases of invincible ignorance and being saved with a good conscience (LG 16) are not known to them on earth then LG 16 does not contradict the dogma or Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II. Then Vatican Council II is in agreement with the traditional interpretation of the dogma. 

So it means  Vatican Council II is ecclesiocentric since we do not know any case of a person saved in invincible ignorance etc.

There is only model in Ecclesiology, it is the traditional ecclesiocentric one.

If it is said in ecclesiology that the Church is communion -fine!- however the Church is also ecclesiocentric according to Vatican Council II (AG 7). Vatican Council II is saying that there is exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church. This is a traditionalist document.

If it is said that there is collegiality or another model of being Church, still, the Church is ecclesiocentric.Every one needs to enter the Church with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation ( AG 7) and there are no known exceptions. It is possible for someone to be saved in invincible ignorance and a good conscience and though we accept this in principle, we do not not any particular case on earth for it to be an exception to the dogma and AG 7. So those who need to enter the Church, all of them in the present time with no exceptions, include Protestants and Orthodox Christians.

This is the teaching of the Church in Vatican Council II and we do not know any one saved with the seeds of the Word or in imperfect communion with the Church.

So the SSPX error is in ecclesiology and it spills out in ecumenism, other religions and religious liberty. The error is not there in Vatican Council per se.

There are two questions that the SSPX bishops and priests need to be asked. Could someone in contact with them, ask them these two questions and then e-mail me their answer.

1. Do we know people in Heaven, or on earth, saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire ? Yes or No.

2. If we do not know any such person then those saved in invincible ignorance and a good conscience (LG 16) and the baptism of desire are not exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus i.e there is exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church and there are no known exceptions?

(With reference to Question 1 they may say that it is possible to be saved in invincible ignorance etc. Agree with them and then come back to the question.)

(With reference to Question 2 if they say that the Church teaches that invincible ignorance etc is an exception mention that no magisterial document says that these cases are explicit and so are exceptions to the dogma. Church texts only mention invincible ignorance, implicit desire etc.

Then come back to the question and ask if they know any such person personally.) -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 Council II.

Nostra Aetate does not contradict Ad Gentes 7
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/05/nostra-aetate-does-not-contradict-ad.html#links

SSPX’S BASIC PROBLEM IS ECCLESIOLOGY

Vatican Council II is ecclesiocentric since those saved with the seeds of the Word, in imperfect communion, a good conscience … are not known to us on earth.

In the Vatican-SSPX talks Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J and Bishop Charles Morerod O.P rejected the ecclesiocentric model. Since they assumed, and the SSPX agreed, that the baptism of desire etc were explicit. So for them there were exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) did not realize the common error at that time or they could have called for a correction in the two theological papers of the International Theological Commission.(1) The President and Secretary of the ITC were Fr. Luiz Ladaria S.J and Fr.Charles Morerod O.P.(2)

Even the SSPX bishops accepted this new doctrine and assumed that Lumen Gentium 16 was a contradiction of the traditional teaching on other religions and ecumenism.

A new liberal understanding of Church (ecclesiology) emerged and Vatican Council II a traditionalist Council was given liberal interpretations.

The religious communities of Fr. Leonard Feeney in the USA who hold the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and reject the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are criticized. Critics include the SSPX.

So the basic problem of the SSPX with regard to Vatican Council II is ecclesiology. They need to see  the ecclesiology of the Council is as traditional (AG 7). (3)

The SSPX can affirm traditional ecclesiology with the literal interpretation of the dogma outside the church no salvation and also implicit baptism of desire, known only to God. In fact all religious communities can accept the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus along with implicit baptism of desire. This is the interpretation of the Church Fathers, Church Councils, popes, saints, Catechisms and Vatican Council I and II.

If the Vatican faults the SSPX it would be an error since over time the theological and doctrinal implications of this issue will be known to Catholics. The SSPX could make things easier for the Vatican and acknowledge in the public the Richard Cushing Error. They also need to remove WebPages (‘three baptisms’ etc) which criticize Fr. Leonard Feeney and assume there are three forms of baptism-all explicit.

-Lionel Andrades

1.

10. Exclusivist ecclesiocentrism—the fruit of a specific theological system or of a mistaken understanding of the phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus—is no longer defended by Catholic theologians after the clear statements of Pius XII and Vatican Council II on the possibility of salvation for those who do not belong visibly to the Church (cf, e.g., LG 16; GS 22).-International Theological Commission, Christianity and the World Religions 1997.


62…A theological evaluation of the religions was impeded over a long time because of the principle extra ecclesiam nulla salus, understood in an exclusivist sense.- Christianity and the World  Religions.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1997_cristianesimo-religioni_en.html

58. In the face of new problems and situations and of an exclusive interpretation of the adage: “salus extra ecclesiam non est”the magisterium, in recent times, has articulated a more nuanced understanding as to the manner in which a saving relationship with the Church can be realized. The Allocution of Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quadam (1854) clearly states the issues involved: “It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it, will perish in the flood. On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who live in ignorance of the true religion, if such ignorance be invincible, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord”.


59. The Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston (1949) offers further specifications. “To gain eternal salvation, it is not always required that a person be incorporated in reality (reapse) as a member of the Church, but it is necessary that one belong to it at least in desire and longing (voto et desiderio). It is not always necessary that this desire be explicit as it is with catechumens. When one is invincibly ignorant, God also accepts an implicit desire, so called because it is contained in the good disposition of soul by which a person wants his or her will to be conformed to God’s will”.-The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without Baptism-2007 ITC.
 (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_index-doc-pubbl_en.html )

2.

Cardinal Luis Ladaria S.J Secretary Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith does away with the defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Limbo and Original Sin in the International Theological Commission position papers: CDF expects the Society of St.Pius X to accept all this
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/cardinal-luis-ladaria-sj-secretary.html

International Theological Commission (ITC) makes an objective, factual error in two of its published documents. Could they also be wrong about Limbo?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/international-theological-commission_2687.html

VATICAN'S INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION MAKES AN ERROR IN ITS POSITION PAPER CHRISTIANITY AND THE WORLD RELIGIONS
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/vaticans-international-theological.html#links

INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION USES PREMISE THAT IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT : LIMBO
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/international-theological-commission_29.html

The International Theological Commission's position paper Christianity and the World Religions 1997 has an objective factual error and is approved by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger : invincible ignorance is not an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/international-theological-commissions.html

INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION ASSUMES ‘SEEDS OF THE WORD’ (VATICAN COUNCIL II ) IN OTHER RELIGIONS ARE KNOWN TO US AND THIS IS AN EXPLICIT EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/international-theological-commission.html

VATICAN'S INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION MAKES AN ERROR IN ITS POSITION PAPER CHRISTIANITY AND THE WORLD RELIGIONS
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/vaticans-international-theological.html

VATICAN COUNCIL II REJECTS THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/vatican-council-ii-rejects-theology-of.html

Former Secretary of the International Theological Commission holds that those saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance are known to us and so an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/02/secretary-of-international-theological.html#links


3.
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.

Nostra Aetate does not contradict Ad Gentes 7
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/05/nostra-aetate-does-not-contradict-ad.html#links

VATICAN COUNCIL II IS A TRADITIONALIST DOCUMENT

Even if the SSPX bishops are faulted they still call the shots since traditional doctrine is fully in accord with Vatican Council II.

The liberals do not have any citations from Vatican Council II since LG 16 does not contradict AG 7. For the Jewish Left the Council is just an empty political slogan for whatever is on their agenda.

Vatican Council II is a traditionalist document irrespective if the SSPX rejects or accepts it.

Some 13 or 14 years back I was a day student at a Catholic seminary near my house.During the ecclesiology semester we were taught different models of Church. There was the inverted pyramid model,or the Church as communion, or collegiality etc.I ask myself how do any of these models contradict AG 7? It does not!

And finally all of us will be judged individually and not in communion etc.

Similarly the ecclesiology seminar during the first week of June at the Gregorian University is on the theme ‘An ecclesiology which serves’.In other words reject the traditional model and choose what you want. They cannot cite texts from Vatican Council but just claim that it is the spirit of Vatican Council II and the spirit of Vatican Council II could be different for different Catholics. They cannot cite texts from Vatican Council since it is a traditionalist Council.

SSPX and many traditionalists do not see Vatican Council II as a traditionalist Council,since like the liberals, they assume that those saved in invincible ignorance etc (LG 16) are explicitly known.Once this error is detected, no one can doubt that Vatican Council II is a traditionalist Council, with traditional values on Judaism, other religions and ecumenism.Over time more Catholics will realize this.

Once this error of the visible baptism of desire and invincible ignorance is detected things begin to fall into place, the texts seem ‘refreshingly clear’ as someone put it.

One has to explain the Council using AG 7 and extra ecclesiam nulla salus as the basis and all traditional values become coherent : ecclesiology, other religions, ecumenism etc.

If someone criticizes the Council as being liberal the odds are he or she assumes people saved with a good conscience etc are known to us on earth.-Lionel Andrades

SSPX COULD MAKE THINGS EASIER FOR POPE BENEDICT XVI

The solution to the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) canonical status issue is easy and the SSPX can help Pope Benedict XVI.They can make his decision easy with a clear announcement on Catholic doctrine.

Bishop Bernard Fellay is quoted as saying that they do not reject the Council per se and could accept 95% of Vatican Council II.He would want the other five percent to be interpreted also according to Tradition.

So an announcement is called for:

The SSPX can state that they accept the Council as a historical reality-it happened. They would agree with the Council when it is  interpreted according to Tradition. They also agree with Ad Gentes 7(AG 7), specially, which says all people, all non Catholics included, need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation. This includes Jews, Muslims, Orthodox Christians and Protestants. AG 7 is not contradicted by Lumen Gentium 16 since we do not know anyone on earth saved in invincible ignorance or a good conscience. So AG 7 does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Every one needs to convert into the Church and there are no known exceptions of the baptism of desire, seeds of the Word etc.We accept in principle the possibility of non Catholics being saved in invincible ignorance etc and in a manner known only to God. These cases are unknown to us.

Since the dogma and AG 7 affirm the need for all people to enter the Church, all political and social legislation must be centred on Jesus as he is understood by the Catholic Church, the one true Church (UR 3).AG 7 places a moral obligation on Catholics to affirm only the Catholic Church in inter-religious dialogue and ecumenism. In inter religious dialogue it must be remembered that the Church is the ordinary means of salvation (Redemptoris Missio 55).Catholics are the new people of God (NA 4), the Chosen People of God. They have the Jewish Messiah, the new and eternal Covenant and the Sacrifice of the Mass.

Once this is all clear and announced in public SSPX critics will observe that the SSPX is endorsing Vatican Council II (AG 7 etc). They are also affirming it in accord with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. In accord with Tradition, they are also affirming traditional ecclesiology and the traditional understanding of Judaism, other religions and ecumenism. So they cannot be faulted. They can cite references from the Council while the liberals cannot support their new ecclesiology with texts from the Council since LG 16 is not an exception to AG 7. There are no exceptions e.g. collegiality or Nostra Aetate do not reject AG 7.

Meanwhile the SSPX continues to reject the liberal interpretation of Vatican Council II which has no supporting text from the Council and assumes those saved in invincible ignorance etc are known to us on earth.

SSPX could in turn ask Cardinal Kurt Koch and Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J and the rest of the Vatican Curia, to affirm Vatican Council II (AG 7) in accord with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no known exceptions.

Cardinal Kurt Koch in his May 16 statement at the Angelicum University, reported by Catholic News Service and Rorate Caeli has indicated that Jews do not have to convert in the present time. This is proof that he does not accept Vatican Council II.-Lionel Andrades

SSPX (USA) IS STILL REALLY SAYING THE MAGISTERIUM MADE A MISTAKE IN THE FR.LEONARD FEENEY CASE

We know there is no known baptism of desire and if the Letter of the Holy Office 'condemned' Fr.Leonard Feeney for denying the baptism of desire then they made a mistake.

The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) position on the baptism of desire is the same as that of Cardinal Walter Kaspar who will preside at an ecumenical conference next week on ecclesiology to be held at the Gregorian Pontifical University, Rome.

The seminar is to reject the traditional concept of ecclesiology.Cardinal Kaspar too believes like the traditionalists that the baptism of desire is visible and so is an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

In a way Cardinal Kaspar and the SSPX are saying that every one on earth does not need the Eucharist for salvation and there are known exceptions to John 6.

Whatever way one may interpret the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and however one may argue, we all have to agree that we do not know any case of the baptism of desire neither do we know anyone on earth, or Heaven, saved in invincible ignorance.

Once the SSPX makes a clear announcement on this subject Cardinal Kaspar and  others will realize that they are pushing a dead horse, a false ecclesiology with no available citation from the Letter or any other magisterial text-unless they assume that the Magisterium made a mistake.

When the Letter refers to the baptism of desire, like other magisterial documents, it means the baptism of desire accepted only in principle, as a belief, in faith. It cannot be otherwise. We cannot know defacto(explicit) cases of anyone saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance.So the Letter of the Holy Office has not made a mistake. It is the SSPX and Cardinal Kaspar who have made the error of assuming that the baptism of desire cases are known to us personally in the present time.

We know that there is no known baptism of desire and the Letter refers to 'the dogma',whose text carries the literal interpretation of the priest from Boston.

Even if the SSPX says that the Magisterium made a mistake, or did not, it could acknowledge that its bishops, priests, nuns and lay members do not have the charism to identify non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.

-Lionel Andrades

The Latin Mass Society Conference in London speakers in confusion; SSPX could be letting another chance go by

On June 9 the Latin Mass Society will hold a conference (1) and the speakers include Fr.Tim Finigan who on the blog The Hermeneutic of Continuity has difficulty with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, baptism of desire and Vatican Council II.There is confusion on ecclesiology.Unless there are people on earth who have a special charism and Fr.Tim Finegan could be one of them, who can see people on earth saved with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance, most people, if not all, cannot see these cases. So these cases  cannot be exceptions to the dogma. The baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma.

This issue is at the heart of the SSPX problem.The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) needs to respond to all this in language which is precise example they could say:-

“We reject the Vatican Council II of those who believe that persons saved in invincible ignorance etc are known to us on earth and so are exceptions to Original Sin, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II ( AG 7).We reject this Vatican Council II interrpetation as irrational. We can accept any Magisterial document, including Vatican Council II, which assumes those saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) etc are in Heaven and are known only to God.So Vatican Council II according to Tradition does not contradict the SSPX position on other religions, Judaism and ecumenism and it is in in agreement with the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known to popes,Church Councils and saints”.

So when Cardinal Kurt Koch says the SSPX must accept Vatican Council II they can respond that they do accept the Council according to Tradition e.g Ad Gentes 7. Can Cardinal Koch accept it? No! This can be seen by their removal of comments on this subject from Rorate Caeli.Ad Gentes 7 is at the heart of other religions,ecumenism and religious liberty.

When Cardinal Kurt Koch says that the SSPX must accept that Jews do not have to convert the SSPX could respond that Vatican Council II indicates that Jews need to convert and that Catholics are the new Chosen People of God. Can Cardinal Koch accept this ? No. This can be seen from their response to the Catholic News Service report on Cardinal Koch's May 16 statement at the Angelicum University.

However if the SSPX is not sure of this issue like some of the speakers at the London Conference Cardinal Koch can make his claims on Vatican Council II with no references from the Council and the SSPX will not be able to check him. The same thing happened during the SSPX-Vatican talks. The SSPX did not point out to Cardinal Ladaria and Bishop Morerod the factual errors that are there in two of the theological papers of the International Theological Commission. They should have made it public. They did not. The Vatican side got away with it.

-Lionel Andrades

1.

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/05/latin-mass-society-conference-in-london.html#more
___________________________________________

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.

Nostra Aetate does not contradict Ad Gentes 7
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/05/nostra-aetate-does-not-contradict-ad.html#links

POPE EXPECTED TO SAY NEXT MONTH NON CHRISTIAN BABIES DO NOT NEED THE BAPTISM OF WATER TO GO TO HEAVEN

Pope Benedict XVI is to speak on June 11 at a conference on the theme 'Go out into the whole world.Teach and baptize’ and ‘Discovering the beauty of baptism’.The pope is expected to say  non Chrtisian babies do not need the baptism of water for salvation and they will be saved, because of  the mercy of God, even with Original Sin on their soul.He has already said that non Catholic adults do not have to convert into the Church for salvation. So he is expected to present another reason why we should go out into the whole  world…

This positionof the Holy Father is contrary to Tradition, the dogma extra eccesiam nulla salus, the Catechism of the Catholic Chruch N.1257 and the Bible on baptism (John 3:5).It is a hermeneutic of rupture.

This new doctrine of the pope is considered ‘development’ as explained in the International Theological Commission(ITC) papers The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die without Being Baptised (2007) and Christianity and the World Religions (1997). Both these papers carry an oversight. They have an objective factual error. This is the Richard Cushing Error.This oversight is the basis , one of the theological pegs for the non traditional speculation on the fate of unbaptized infants. The two ITC papers approved by the pope assume that those saved with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are known to us in the present time. They believe that the understanding of the baptism of desire etc in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case was an historic ‘development of doctrine’. They do not realize, that these cases are not known to us in heaven or on earth.Neither does the pope?

They believe that this development of doctrine is a clear exception to the dogma extra eclessiam nulla salus. So if there can be an exception to the dogma on the need for all adults to receive the baptism of water it is reasoned, why can there not  be exceptions for infants?

And if the exceptions can be there in a few cases then why not in general for all non Christians? This is how the argument goes for them. So the  ITC issued the paper on Limbo in 2007 based on a factual error: being able to see people on earth saved with the baptism of desire etc.

Like the little boy who cried "The Emperor has no clothes!" in the Hans Christian Anderson fable , someone has to shout out to the pope "We don’t know anyone saved in heaven or on earth with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance!”

The pope who says non Christian babies are saved without the baptism of water and with Original Sin on their soul, and still do not go to Hell or Limbo, also says, due to foreign pressure, that  Jews do not have to convert in the present times.He will speak next month on the need to go out and proclaim the Good News and baptise, when he also says, that all non Christians are saved, as infants and adults with Original Sin and they do not need the baptism of water.So why go out...?

Pope Benedict is  our pope and we love him.I wish he would clarify that there are  no known exceptions of people saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible  ignorance and so there cannot be any known exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So everyone , for salvation, needs  to remove Original Sin with the baptism of water.

He should not confuse Catholics and say that the Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water (CCC 1257) and ALSO  say there are known exceptions of....He assumes there are known exceptions because he does not recognize the Richard Cushing Error.

-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 Council II.


Nostra Aetate does not contradict Ad Gentes 7
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/05/nostra-aetate-does-not-contradict-ad.html#links

CARDINAL KOCH’S MAY 16 TALK AT THE ANGELICUM POSTED BY RORATE CAELI: NO DIFFERENT FROM THE CATHOLIC NEWS SERVICE REPORT

Jews do not have to convert in the present time is a first class heresy.It contradicts the Bible, the Nicene Creed, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II. Instead of being excommunicated the cardinal is supported by the pope and the Curia.

RORATE CAELI CAVES TO POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/05/rorate-caeli-caves-to-political.html

Liturgical Abuse : Vatican Curia

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/05/liturgical-abuse-vatican-curia.html

Nostra Aetate does not contradict Ad Gentes 7

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/05/nostra-aetate-does-not-contradict-ad.html

CARDINAL KOCH MOUTHS HERESY AT THE ANGELICUM UNIVERSITY: THROWS AWAY VATICAN COUNCIL II, BIBLE AND DOGMA

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/05/cardinal-koch-mouths-heresy-at.html

 

Pope Benedict XVI has rejected Vatican Council II (AG 7) in Light of the World p.107: Also Cardinals Bertone, Bagnasco, Koch and Ladaria. Yet three SSPX bishops could be excommunicated for only ‘saying’ they reject the Council

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/05/pope-benedict-xvi-has-rejected-vatican.html#links

CONFUSED CDF MEETS TODAY

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/05/confused-cdf-meets-today.html#links

ANIVERSARY OF THE DENIAL OF THE FAITH BY THE MAGISTERIUM ?

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/04/aniversary-of-denial-of-faith-by.html#links

This should be the Society of St.Pius X response to Cardinal Kurt Koch and the rabbi at the Angelicum University.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/05/this-should-be-society-of-stpius-x.html#links

-Lionel Andrades

MONS. RAFFAELLO MARTINELLI BISHOP OF FRASCATI INDICATES BABIES ARE SAVED IN GENERAL WITHOUT THE BAPTISM OF WATER AND WITH ORIGINAL SIN : THEOLOGY HIT WITH THE RICHARD CUSHING ERROR

Next month when Pope Benedict speaks on baptism he is expected to repeat this rejection of Catholic doctrine.
The pope will indicate it is expected, that all Jewish babies who die in the present time without the baptism of water will go to heaven with Jesus. The pope has already said that Jews do not have to convert into the Church for salvation in the present times. (Light of the World, p.105, Cardinal Bertone’s Communiqué to the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, L’Osservatore Romano April 10, 2008).

Mons Raffaello Martinelli the bishop of Frascati, Italy has issued a new apologetic pamphlet in Italian which indicates babies are saved in general without the baptism of water and with Original Sin on their souls.(1) As a reference he has cited the International Theological Commission paper 'The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without being baptized' (2007).(2) It indicates that we know people on earth and in Heaven saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. So there are explicitly known exceptions in the present times, of persons in Original Sin who are going to Heaven.So if this is the case with adults, it is assumed, why not babies too ?

Mons. Raffaello Martinelli, who worked at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith alongwith Cardinal Ratzinger, says that in the present times we affirm the hope of the salvation of infants who have not received the baptism of water. The hope is based he said on the universal salvific will of God, the universality of the unique mediation of Jesus, the primacy of divine grace and the love of Jesus for children.

This is totally false. It is non Catholic theology. Next month when Pope Benedict speaks on baptism he is expected to repeat this rejection of Catholic doctrine.

The pamphlet says babies who are not baptized are saved and also says everyone needs the baptism of water and the Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water.Is this confusing? It’s confusing because of the Richard Cushing Error which has been accepted perhaps unknowingly.

The ITC paper confirms that the pope believes that those who are saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are known on earth and so they are explicit exceptions to the centuries old interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. (3) Since there are no known exceptions to the dogma and the literal interpretation of Fr. Leonard Feeney, it is assumed that babies and adults can go to heaven in general or in a few cases, without the baptism of water.

The dogma says everyone needs the baptism of water for salvation, while Richard Cushing said NO, some people on earth do not need the baptism of water for salvation as if he knew who they were.So the pamphlet says everyone needs baptism but some do not.

Richard Cushing the former Archbishop of Boston’s error is also there in the interpretation of Vatican Council II according to Fr. Hans Kung.Ad Gentes 7 says everyone needs Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation but it is assumed there are known exceptions in Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance and good conscience). So Vatican Council II also contradicts itself, if we assume we know who is saved in invincible ignorance.

To justify the Richard Cushing Error a theology is presented on baptism  which is not Catholic.

1.The theology says ‘The hope is based on the universal salvific will of God’. Dominus Iesus 20 says salvation is open for all, in potential, however to receive it all need to enter the Church. The Church is needed. (Ad Gentes 7, Cantate Domino Council of Florence 1441, extra ecclesiam nulla salus).

2.’The universality of the unique mediation of Jesus’. The unique mediation of Jesus does not exclude the  necessity of formal entry into the Church for all;everyone having to enter the Church for salvation, with no known exceptions (Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II, dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus)

3.’The primacy of divine grace.’The primacy of divine grace cannot be used to deny the existence of Hell, mortal sin and Original Sin. The defined dogma and Vatican Council II indicate that most people are oriented to Hell at the time of death.

4.‘The love of Jesus for children.’This sentimental theology excludes Jesus’ love also for adults and the dogma of Hell. Jesus loves all yet Catholic adults can go to Hell who are in mortal sin.

The place where unbaptized children go after death may not be Hell with fire but, according to Vatican Council II, the dogma on salvation and Tradition, it is not Heaven.

On June 11, 2012 the Holy Father will present a talk on baptism which is expected to be approved, and not opposed, by the Co-chairman of the Bilateral Commission of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel and the Holy See, Rabbi Shear Yashuv Cohen, who has spoken before the Catholic Synod of Bishops.

The pope will indicate it is expected, that all Jewish babies who die in the present time without the baptism of water will go to heaven with Jesus. The pope has already said that Jews do not have to convert into the Church for salvation in the present times. (Light of the World, p.105, Cardinal Bertone’s Communiqué to the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, L’Osservatore Romano April 10, 2008).One may want to believe that all babies and most adults, if not all, are going to Heaven but the Church does not teach this in magisterial documents.

So why go into the whole world and proclaim the Good News when they all don’t have to convert according to new doctrine based on the Richard Cushing Error  and even babies no more need the baptism of water in general for salvation ?- Lionel Andrades

1.

PERCHE' BATTEZZO IL MIO BAMBINO?

http://www.sancarlo.pcn.net/argomenti_nuovo/pagina12.html

Note there is also an English translation but it is different in content and makes no reference to the International Theological Commission as does the Italian version.

Why baptise my child?
http://www.sancarlo.pcn.net/argomenti_inglese/pagina12.html

http://www.sancarlo.pcn.net/

2.

International Theological Commission (ITC) makes an objective, factual error in two of its published documents. Could they also be wrong about Limbo?

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/international-theological-commission_2687.html#links

Cardinal Luis Ladaria S.J Secretary Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith does away with the defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Limbo and Original Sin in the International Theological Commission position papers: CDF expects the Society of St. Pius X to accept all this

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/cardinal-luis-ladaria-sj-secretary.html#links

3.

HOLY FATHER MAKES AN OBJECTIVE ERROR IN WRITING

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/04/holy-father-makes-objective-error-in.html#links

DID THE POPE REALLY DENY THE FAITH ON THE NEED FOR JEWS TO CONVERT? http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/04/did-pope-really-deny-faith-on-need-for.html

HOLY FATHER ASSUMES THOSE SAVED IN INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE ARE KNOWN TO US: CONTRADICTS VATICAN COUNCIL I AND II

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/04/holy-father-assumes-those-saved-in.html

INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION ASSUMES ‘SEEDS OF THE WORD’ (VATICAN COUNCIL II) IN OTHER RELIGIONS ARE KNOWN TO US AND THIS IS AN EXPLICIT EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/international-theological-commission.html#links

VATICAN'S INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION MAKES AN ERROR IN ITS POSITION PAPER CHRISTIANITY AND THE WORLD RELIGIONS

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/vaticans-international-theological.html#links

JOHN SALZA THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS NOT AN EXPLICIT EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS

I am not referring to theology. It's not the issue of the baptism of desire compromising the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The baptism of desire is irrelvant to the dogma since we do not know any such case personally on earth.

I am not referring to theology I repeat. I am making an intellectual observation, a philosophical observation.

It is : we do not know who is saved in Heaven or on earth  with the baptism of desire, invincible ignorance, a good conscience, seeds of the Word etc.

Since we do not know any such eprson on earth the Church teachng stands, that is, every one with no exception needs Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation.(Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II).Everyone with no exception  needs to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation; to avoid the fires of Hell.(Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441)

If the baptism of desire contradicts 'the dogma' ( The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 )then it would mean that the Letter of the Holy Office, the Magisterium made a mistake. (1) 
For apologist John Salza the baptism of desire is explicitly known ?
 -Lionel Andrades

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/feature-articles/Feature%20-%20Salza%20v%20Goddard%20on%20Baptism%20of%20Desire.pdf
____________________________________________

from The Bellarmine Report

James Phillips 2012-05-09 15:27

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (Outside the Church there is no salvation.) does not hold that only those with water baptism can be saved.

Cf: http://www.catholicintl.com/index.php/component/content/article/52-theology/577-baptism-of-desire-legit-or-not-legit
Also: http://www.scripturecatholic.com/feature-articles/Feature%20-%20Salza%20v%20Goddard%20on%20Baptism%20of%20Desire.pdf

http://www.catholicintl.com/index.php/latest-news/813

____________________________________________
1.
Friday, May 25, 2012
DID THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949, THE MAGISTERIUM, MAKE A MISTAKE? NO
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was issued to the Archbishop of Boston during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII. It did not make a mistake when it said that every one needs to be incorporated into the church as a member does not exclude those who can be saved with implicit desire.

It means in principle, only as a concept, as a belief there can be non Catholics saved with implicit desire. The Letter if it is saying only in principle ‘it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member’, it has not made a mistake.However if someone misreads the Letter and assumes those saved with an implicit desire are known to us on earth; they are explicitly known, and so are exceptions, so every one does not need to be incorporated as a member into the Church - this is a mistake.We do not know anyone on earth saved with an implicit desire. Neither do we know anyone in Heaven saved with an implicit desire.
The Letter of the Holy Office supports Fr.Leonard Feeney since implicit desire can only be accepted as a possibility and is irrelevant to the literal interpretation of the dogma, as interpreted by Fr.Leonard Feeney and St.Benedict Center.
continued
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/05/did-letter-of-holy-office-1949.html

_________________________________________________

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.


Nostra Aetate does not contradict Ad Gentes 7
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/05/nostra-aetate-does-not-contradict-ad.html#links

POPE BENEDICT XVI TO SPEAK ON BAPTISM BUT WILL NOT SAY EVERYONE NEEDS IT BECAUSE OF THE CONFUSION ON INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE AND THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE

The Rome Vicariate is to hold a conference next month at the St.John Lateran University, Rome and the theme is :'Andate e fate discepoli, battezzando e insegnando'(Go out and make disciples, teach and baptize' ( Matt.28,19-20) and 'Ricopriamo la belleza del batesimo' (Discover the beauty of baptism).The ecclesial conference from June 11-13, 2012 is to be addressed by the Holy Father. It will be followed by a talk on the history of baptism in the Church.

In the past the Holy Father has called for an evangelization not on the necessity for all people on earth to enter the Church to avoid Hell but with the emphasis on the beauty of the face of Jesus.So he is expected to talk also on the beauty of baptism.

The Holy Father is unable to say everyone today with no exception  needs Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation (Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II) since he assumes, it seems, that there are known cases in the present times saved with the baptism of desire and  blood or in invincible ignorance who do not need the baptism of water for salvation.-Lionel Andrades

DID THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949, THE MAGISTERIUM, MAKE A MISTAKE? NO

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was issued to the Archbishop of Boston during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII. It did not make a mistake when it said that every one needs to be incorporated into the church as a member does not exclude those who can be saved with implicit desire.

It means in principle, only as a concept, as a belief there can be non Catholics saved with implicit desire. The Letter if it is saying only in principle ‘it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member’, it  has not made a mistake.However if someone misreads the Letter and assumes those saved with an implicit desire are known to us on earth; they are explicitly known, and so are exceptions, so every one does not need to be incorporated as a member into the Church - this is a mistake.We do not know anyone on earth saved with an implicit desire. Neither do we know anyone in Heaven saved with an implicit desire.

The Letter of the Holy Office supports Fr.Leonard Feeney since implicit desire can only be accepted as a possibility and is irrelevant to the literal interpretation of the dogma, as interpreted by Fr.Leonard Feeney and St.Benedict Center.

When the Letter criticizes Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center it is because they were disobedient to ‘ecclesiastical authority’.So if someone says that the Letter was critical of Fr.Leonard Feeney for denying the baptism of desire, since the baptism of desire is an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma, then this would be saying that the Magisterium made a mistake. This is not true.

If Fr.Leonard Feeney said there is no baptism of desire, in principle or fact, it is irrelevant to his literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

If the media says Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for denying the baptism of desire, then it would mean the Letter made a mistake, since the baptism of desire cannot be an exception to the dogma.

The Letter instead refers to 'the dogma', the 'infallible statement'. The  text of the thrice defined dogma indicates  everyone is required to 'be incorporated into the Church actually as a member'.The dogma does not mention any known exceptions of the baptism of desire etc.This was the Richard Cushing Error. It was the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Cushing and the Jesuits of Boston who assumed that invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire were exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, and of course, to Fr.Leonard Feeney.

Cardinal Cushing and the Jesuits are believed to have tried to include this error in Vatican Council II but were blocked.Invincible ignorance etc in itself is no problem when it is mentioned in the text as long as one does not assume that it is an exception to the dogma.No text in Vatican Council II claims that it is an exception or that we known these cases personally.

However they did manage to create confusion. It seems, to priests today, that Ad Gentes 7 contradicts itself (if one assumes we know cases in Heaven) and Lumen Gentium 16 contradicts Ad Gentes 7 and the centuries old interpretation of the dogma.

Fr.Hans Kung repeated the Cushing Error after Vatican Council II.It seems as if Fr.Hans Kung had built his entire theological edifice on the Richard Cushing Error.

He began writing a series of books on how there is salvation in general for Buddhists, Protestants...and that the infallibilioty of the pope ex cathedra was contradicted with invincible ignorance etc being 'explicit' exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So he rejected the dogmas on infallibility and salvation.

Over time Pontifical Universities, cardinals and bishops, even the SSPX seminaries, would be infected with this error which emerged in the 1940's, years before Vatican Council II, in the Heresy Case not of Fr.Leonard Feeney but the Archbishop and Jesuits in the Archdiocese of Boston.They assumed that there were explicit exceptions to a de fide teaching.They also seemed to misinterpret the Letter as did the secular media in Boston and then the rest of the world.

-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 Council II.


Nostra Aetate does not contradict Ad Gentes 7
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/05/nostra-aetate-does-not-contradict-ad.html#links