Thursday, April 19, 2012

WILL BISHOP BERNARD FELLAY IN THE PROFESSION OF FAITH SAY: 'I BELIEVE IN ONE BAPTISM FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS?


The SSPX website says there are three baptisms not one

There will be confusion when the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) bishops have to make the Profession of Faith and recite the Nicene Creed. Confusion already exists among the Catholic religious on the phrase ‘I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin’. This means I believe in the baptism of water for the forgiveness of Original Sin.
Many believe those saved in  invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are known to us and so are defacto exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. So they say all do not need the baptism of water. The SSPX website says there is not one but three baptisms.

Fr. Peter Scott and Fr. Francois Laisney of the SSPX state everyone needs the baptism of water for salvation except for those in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.This is a rejection of the credal phrase with a misunderstanding.

Once it is understood that we cannot know personally these exceptional cases then the creedal phrase stands. 'I believe in one baptism (of water) for the forgiveness of sins'  and there are no known exceptions on earth to the baptism of water.

Cardinal Luiz Ladaria, the Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith probably  recited the line on the baptism of water. Yet in public he says that the Church no more teaches exclusive salvation exists in only the Catholic Church. In other words there are explicit exceptions known to him and they are an exception to the Nicene Constantinople Creed.

The pope himself in Light of the World p.107 believes there are defacto exceptions to the ancient teaching that there is only one channel (way) of salvation and it is Jesus in the Catholic Church.

So when Bishop Fellay recites the Nicene Creed what will be his meaning for the creedal line?

Does he think Fr. Leonard Feeney and his present day supporters are wrong to hold the literal interpretation of the dogma?Before the lifting of the excommunication for disobedience, Fr. Leonard Feneey chose to recite the Athanasius Creed, which says outside the church there is no salvation.Does Bishop Fellay also believe in the literal interpretation of the dogma?Or does he believe that the dogma is no  longer valid since there can be cases of Catholics saved in invincible ignorance and they would be known to him?

Fr. Scott and Fr. Laisney are very critical of Fr. Leonard Feeney.Judging by their writings on the internet when they recite the Creed in a Profession of Faith and will really be denying the Creed. They will mean "I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin, except, that I do also believe that those saved in invincible ignorance  and the baptism of desire on earth do not need the baptism of water for salvation. So all on earth do not need the baptism of water as the Creed states.So I conclude that not all non Catholics on earth need the baptism of water”
-Lionel Andrades

ITS TIME FOR ECCLESIA DEI TO BEGIN RECONCILIATION WITH HUTTON GIBSON, CMRI,MHFM AND OTHER SEDEVACATISTS: PRIMARY ISSUE IS EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS

Vatican clarification needed that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are not explicit exceptions to the dogma and no magisterial text makes this claim.

HUTTON AND MEL GIBSON NOT CONTRADICTED BY VATICAN COUNCIL II ON EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS

SEDEVACANTISTS DO NOT MAKE DEFACTO - DEJURE DISTINCTION ARGUE OVER STRAWMAN
Most Holy Family Monastery and CMRI controversy on the MHFM website

WASTED TELEPHONE CALLS: BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS NOT AN EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION.
Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B. phones up the Congregatio Mariae Reginae Immaculatae assuming those saved in invincible ignorance etc are de facto known to us, and you could telephone or meet these rare cases.

SEDEVACANTISTS DO NOT MAKE DEFACTO - DEJURE DISTINCTION ARGUE OVER STRAWMAN
Most Holy Family Monastery and CMRI controversy on the MHFM website

BISHOP ROBERT MCKENNA AND SEDEVACANTISTS MHFM DISCUSS BAPTISM OF DESIRE NOT REALIZING THAT IT DOES NOT CONTRADICT THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS


The Dimond Brothers at the Most Holy Family Monastery assume that the baptism of desire cases are known to us so they contradict the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and other magisterial teachings.So they reject the baptism of desire.Bishop Robert McKenna also believes that these cases are known to us and so they are exceptions to the dogmatic teaching that every one needs to convert into the Church for salvation.

Pope Benedict XVI in Light of the World p.107 also assumes that these cases are explicit exceptions to the dogma and AG 7,Vatican Council II.Cardinal Luiz Ladara Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in two papers of the International Theological Commission makes this same error and so concludes that there is no more exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.

The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) priests Fr.Peter Scott and Fr.Francois Laisney also make this same error. Fr.Laisney has published a book with this error and it is being sold by the SSPX.

Why cannot all Cardinals, bishops, priests, nuns and other Catholic religious accept the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and also implicit baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance?

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 does not say that Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for heresy. It mentions disobedience. If they assumed that he was in heresy for saying that there was no baptism of desire ,just like the Dimond Brothers, then those who wrote the Letter of the Holy Office made an objective, factual error. The baptism of desire is not an explicit exception to the dogma.We don’t know anyone on earth saved with the baptism of desire.

These cases are accepted as possibilities which are known only to God. We can never ever know any case saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance.

Hence there are no exceptions in Vatican Council II to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Instead Vatican Council II is in agreement with the traditional understanding of ecumenism, other religions and religious liberty.

The Dimond Brothers nor the SSPX priests will admit they are wrong and neither will they respond to these reports. –Lionel Andrades

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/debate_with_mckenna.php

Wednesday, April 18, 2012
POPE CONTRADICTS BIBLE, CARDINAL LEVADA ISSUES NO CLARIFICATION. EXPECTS OFFICAL CLARIFICATION FROM BISHOP FELLAY
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/04/pope-contradicts-bible-cardinal-levada.html

ST.THOMAS DID NOT REJECT “INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE”: HE KNEW IT DID NOT CONTRADICT THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF OUTSIDE THE CHURCH NO SALVATION, WHICH HE HELD
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/stthomas-did-not-reject-invincible.html#links