Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Pope Francis appoints Fr.John Crossin as member to Pontifical Council for Christian Unity

Pope Francis has appointed Fr.John Crossins, OSFS, executive director of the Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious issues of the Episcopal Conference of the United States of America,USCCB as a member of the liberal Pontifical Council for Christian Unity it was announced yesterday.
 
We Catholics no longer embrace a theology of return" says Fr. John Crossin, O.S.F.S (5:24. See video below) the Executive Director of the Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).
 
The head of this USCCB department,while throwing away Tradition and the Great Commission of Jesus, is saying that the public policy of the USCCB is that Protestants, Evangelicals and Orthodox Christians do not have to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation.When St.Paul and the Apostles baptized with water they baptized people into a community, a Church. This was the Catholic Church. Fr. John Crossin is denying the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and he is changing the Nicene Creed ( I believe in one(known) baptism for the forgiveness of sin). He is rejecting Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7) which says all need faith and baptism for salvation,which would also include the Jews.He is also rejecting Nostra Aetate  which says that the Church is the one and only religion of God and that Catholics are the new people of God, the new Chosen People.The Church is the new people of God (Nostra Aetate 4).The video indicates that he is trying to please the influential Jewish Anti Defamation League which approves  homosexuality, atheism, abortion and other pro-Satan values and would appreciate his appointment.
-Lionel Andrades
 

 
 
 
 
July 22, 2014

Factual error during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII has influenced many departments of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB):major error, public heresy http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/07/factual-error-during-pontificate-of.html

 

 
 

Senza questa errore Concilio Vaticano II e tradizionale!

C'e una cosa importante che vorrei dire. E semplice ma anche importante.
Voglio dire che noi uomini non possiamo vedere i morti sulla terra. Noi non possiamo vedere uno qualsiasi ora salvata in Cielo. Noi non possiamo vedere con i nostri occhi fisici. Sappiamo che il Papa Giovanni Paolo II è in cielo. Sappiamo questa nella fede. Fisicamente non possiamo vedere lui o i santi in Paradiso.
Quindi, se un amico o un parente dice che possiamo vedere i morti ora in cielo; possiamo vederli de fatto sulla terra, allora questo non è vero.
Quindi, anche se un papa implicava che i morti salvato nella ignoranza invincibile, o il battesimo di desiderio è visibile a noi sulla terra, dobbiamo respingerla.
La Lettera di Sant Ufficio 1949 dire che salvezza sul invincible ignoranza or il battesimo di desiderio e una eccezione per il dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. In senso che tutti non bisogna di battesimo di aqua in tempo presente( ecc.2014) per salvezza.
Significa : i morti chi e addesso in Cielo e visibili sulla terra.Questi casi perche e conosciuto e visibili, loro sono e eccezione per la traditionale insegnamente della Chiesa sul extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
I papi e santi dicono tutti bisogna entrare nella Chiesa per salvezza ma la Lettera di Sant Ufficio dice tutti, ECCETTO che ha ricevuto salvezza in invincible ignoranza e battesimo di desiderio.
Questa stessa errore e in libri e conferenze di Fraternita Sacerdotale San Pio X. Questa errore e in libro di p.Jean M.Gleize di Fraternita Sacerdotale San Pio X, Econe, Switzerland.(Vaticano II: UnDibatito Aperto).
VaticanoII un dibattito aperto
La stessa errore e in libro di Cristina Siccardi.Lei ha scritto questa errore sul p.133 di L'Inverno della Chiesa dopo il Concilio Vaticano II.
 
Questo punto e molto importante per la riconciliazione di Fraternita di San Pio X anche per Francescani della Immaculata.
Questa errore non conosciuto Roberto de Mattei o Bruno Gherardini. Senza questa errore Concilio Vaticano II e tradizionale!
-Lionel Andrades
 
Linverno_della_Chiesa1


 

___________________________
___________________________
LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE
From the Headquarters of the Holy Office, Aug. 8, 1949.
Your Excellency:
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, and that the same controversy was rendered more bitter by serious disturbance of discipline arising from the fact that some of the associates of the institutions mentioned above refused reverence and obedience to legitimate authorities.
Accordingly, the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinals of this Supreme Congregation, in a plenary session held on Wednesday, July 27, 1949, decreed, and the august Pontiff in an audience on the following Thursday, July 28, 1949, deigned to give his approval, that the following explanations pertinent to the doctrine, and also that invitations and exhortations relevant to discipline be given:
We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things which are contained in the word of God, whether it be Scripture or Tradition, and are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, not only through solemn judgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office (, n. 1792).
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.
Now, in the first place, the Church teaches that in this matter there is question of a most strict command of Jesus Christ. For He explicitly enjoined on His apostles to teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever He Himself had commanded (Matt. 28: 19-20).
Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be incorporated by baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth.
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.
Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.
Lionel:
The dogma, the infallible teaching says all need to enter the Church for salvation and not only those who know. Those who know or are in invincible ignorance are not known to us on earth.These cases are not visible to us.Is it being inferred here that these cases are visible to us so only those who know are culpable and every one in general does not need to enter the Church with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water?
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.
Lionel:
'only in the desire and longing' have nothing to do with the centuries old teaching which says all need to convert.There is no visible case of someone saved ' only in the desire and longing'. So it is not an exception to the dogma.Neither is it relevant.So why is it mentioned here? What has 'only in the desire and longing' to do, for example, with everyone needing to enter the Church in 2014 for salvation ?
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).
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.
Lionel:
Desire and longing have nothing to do with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. These cases are not explicit as it is being suggested here.
No pope or saint, who has referred to the baptism of desire, has said that it is visible for us. Rationally we know that the baptism of desire is always implicit for us and explicit for God. This is a given.
So why mention it here?
Is it because it is assumed here that these cases are visible to us and so are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
Did Pope Pius XII make a mistake ?
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:
This is theology based on visible to us baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance.These cases are not known to us and here its theology is being explained.
The theology is based on a false premise that of being able to see the dead-saved.This is irrational. How can we see the dead? How can the deceased-saved be exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus? We do not know of a single explicit case of the dead saved and upon this false premise a theology is being explained here.
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:
No where in that dogmatic letter is it said that the baptism of desire is explicit for us.This is another factual error.It is inferred wrongly that the baptism of desire is visible in particular cases, who do not need the baptism of water for salvation.This is an objective error. We do not know any case of a person saved outside the Church with implicit desire.No magisterial document claims that they are visible to us or that they are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
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."
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,"
Lionel:
"are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," refer to cases which are implicit for us.To be seen in real life they would have to be ghosts.So they are not exceptions. If they were explicit, objectively visible then they would be relevant to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church.So this is not an exception to the dogma as interpreted by the St.Benedict Center and Fr.Leonard Feeney i.e the traditional interpretation, as it was known for centuries.
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" (AAS, 1. c., p. 243). With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution, , in , n. 1641 ff.; also Pope Pius IX in the encyclical letter, , in , n. 1677).
But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: "For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him" (Heb. 11:6). The Council of Trent declares (Session VI, chap. 8): "Faith is the beginning of man's salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children" (Denzinger, n. 801).
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.
From these declarations which pertain to doctrine,
Lionel:
It is not Catholic doctrine to assume that the dead are visible to us and they are explicit, seen in the flesh exceptions, to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is a new doctrine.
certain conclusions follow which regard discipline and conduct, and which cannot be unknown to those who vigorously defend the necessity by which all are bound' of belonging to the true Church and of submitting to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and of the Bishops "whom the Holy Ghost has placed . . . to rule the Church" (Acts 20:28).
Lionel:
'submitting to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and of the Bishops "whom the Holy Ghost has placed . . . to rule the Church"'.
The authorities of the Church were telling Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center that there is known salvation outside the Church.This is a new doctrine. There was known salvation for them since the deceased saved with implicit desire and in invincible ignorance were allegedly visible in the flesh fo them to be exceptions.The Holy Spirit cannot teach this irrationality.
To claim that there are known exceptions to a dogma defined by three Church Councils and which Pope Pius XII called an 'infallible teaching' is heresy. It is also a rejection of the Nicene Creed ' I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin'.This refers to the baptism of water only. Here it is being implied in the Letter that there are three or more known baptisms, water, desire, blood etc
Hence, one cannot understand how the St. Benedict Center can consistently claim to be a Catholic school and wish to be accounted such, and yet not conform to the prescriptions of canons 1381 and 1382 of the Code of Canon Law, and continue to exist as a source of discord and rebellion against ecclesiastical authority and as a source of the disturbance of many consciences.
Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a "Defender of the Faith," and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities, and has not even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons because of his serious violations of his duties as a religious, a priest, and an ordinary member of the Church.
Finally, it is in no wise to be tolerated that certain Catholics shall claim for themselves the right to publish a periodical, for the purpose of spreading theological doctrines, without the permission of competent Church authority, called the "" which is prescribed by the sacred canons.
Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after "Rome has spoken" they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church "only by an unconscious desire." Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.
Lionel:
'submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation', who are here saying there are visible exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is factually incorrect.It is a fact of life that we cannot see the dead.
In sending this letter, I declare my profound esteem, and remain,
Your Excellency's most devoted,
F. Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani.
A. Ottaviani, Assessor.
(Private); Holy Office, 8 Aug., 1949.
_____________________________________

At the Novus Ordo and Traditional Latin Mass we can affirm exclusive salvation, in agreement with Vatican Council II(without the inference) and implicit for us baptism of desire

This is a the continuation of the discussion with Paul at   www.baptismofdesire.com
 
Paul :
      Regarding your comments about baptism of desire being physically invisible, it is understood by all that only God knows where it applies.
Lionel:
I repeat once again that I am not referring to theology.
Physically invisible means that we cannot physically see a case on earth who has been saved with the baptism of desire. There is no explicit defacto case.
So if these cases are not physically visible on earth how can they be explicit exceptions to all needing the baptism of water (physically) in the present times 2014)?
You have not answered the TWO QUESTIONS which are related to this point.
__________________________________________________
 Paul:
  The teachings of the Church on the subject don't squabble over and over  about whether baptism of desire is physically visible or not - it simply teaches that it's possible to have the grace of the Sacrament of baptism supplied this way in rare cases, and therefore that the faithful must believe it. It's that simple. You are getting hung up on things that the Church has not even taught.
Lionel:
I am not referring to theology.
However when you say that the baptism of desire is an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney it is you who are implying that these cases are physically visible to be exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.You imply this.Then you build your theology upon this irrationality.First there is a false premise and then there is the claim of explicit exceptions.
___________________________________________________

Paul:
      You also keep talking about people claiming to see dead people that have been saved with baptism of desire etc. Nowhere do we see this in any Church teaching and you sound like you have lost your sanity for even mentioning it.

Lionel:
When you state that the baptism of desire is an explicit exception to all needing to be baptized with water in the present times, with no exception, you are implying, inferring, suggesting that there are known exceptions.In other words the deceased-saved are visible exceptions.It is because of this irrationality that I have to address this subject and talk in terms of physically visible and physically invisible.


Paul:
      As for the AAS, Canon law clearly states that not all is published in it: Under Canon 9, "Laws laid down by the Apostolic See are promulgated by publication in the official commentary Acta Apostolicae Sedis [Acts of the Apostolic See], unless in particular cases another mode of promulgation has been prescribed."
Lionel:
However the fact is that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 did not have the signature of the Secretary  and was not placed in the Acta Apostolic Sedis and so when Fr.Karl Rahner S.J placed it in the Denzinger he used the citation of the American Ecclesiastical Review.Even after this the Secretary did not approve the Letter.

Paul:
      Your comments on Archbishop Cushing are completely fabricated. Archbishop Cushing received a letter from the Holy Office stating that Pope Pius XII approved of it, and stating that he must publish it, which he did. Therefore this was not just an interoffice memo that Pope Pius XII didn't see. Let's say for argument's sake that Pope Pius XII didn't see the "internal memo". When it was published globally saying that Pope Pius XII DID in fact see and fully approved of it and its publication, he certainly saw it then. He reigned for another 6 years after it was globally published. At that point if Pope Pius XII truly didn't approve of this letter that was making the rounds globally, he would have publicly denounced the letter, and would have publicly denounced Archbishop Cushing for publishing a heretical letter, and for publishing a lie stating that Pope Pius XII approved. It would have been the biggest scandal in the Catholic Church and people would still be talking about it to this day. As we know, none of this happened because Pope Pius XII indeed did fully approve of the letter from the Holy Office.
 
Lionel:
I have mentioned in my last e-mail that even if Pope Pius XII did not directly read the Letter he condoned it over time.Perhaps it was for political reasons. 

Paul:
      Your claim that EENS has been defined by the Church but that baptism of desire hasn't (implying that it must be defined), shows you don't know your faith Lionel.
Lionel:
I have not said this.
I have said that I accept the baptism of desire. I accept implicit for us baptism of desire and reject explicit for us baptism of desire.
Since the baptism of desire, is invisible for us it is not an explicit exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. I don't have a problem with the baptism of desire. Since invisible for us baptism of desire does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction. I accept the 'rigorist interpretation' of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, along with the baptism of desire(implicit).
I think all religious communities, and all Catholics, can accept implicit for us baptism of desire along with the traditional 'rigorist interpretation' of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Those who offer the Novus Ordo Mass and the Traditional Latin Mass can affirm the dogma on exclusive salvation, in agreement with Vatican Council II and in agreement with implicit for us baptism of desire.It does not have to be an either/or choice as your website suggests.It's either/or for you since you consider the baptism of desire as  physically explicit.
Paul:
First, baptism of desire is clearly defined by the Council of Trent, and numerous Doctors of the Church and other sources state so.
Lionel:
Yes and I accept the baptism of desire(implicit).None of the definitions of the baptism of desire state that it is explicit for us.No saint or pope has said that the baptism of desire is objectively seen. And this is what counts in this discussion. Since it would have to be objectively seen to be an exception to Tradition and the old ecclesiology. Presently there is no visible case of salvation outside the Church.
Paul:
But putting that aside for a moment, past popes have made it clear that nothing needs to be solemnly defined by the Church, yet if it is taught by the magisterium of the Church elsewhere (which baptism of desire has been for the entire history of the Church), it must still be equally believed by the faithful. Are you aware of this Lionel? Here are some quotes on this:
Pope Pius IX in his Letter to Archbishop Scherr of Munich in 1863:
"We desire to reassure ourselves that they did not mean to limit the obligation, which strictly binds Catholic teachers and writers, to those things only which are proposed by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith to be believed by everybody. In a like manner, We are convinced that it was not their intention to state that the perfect adherence to revealed truths (which they regard as absolutely necessary for true progress in science and for refuting errors) can be maintained, if the submission of faith is given only to those dogmas expressly defined by the Church. The reason for this is the following: even supposing that we are treating of that subjection which is to be made by an explicit act of divine faith, this must not be limited to those things which have been defined in the express decrees of the ecumenical councils or of the Roman Pontiffs of this See; but it must also be extended to those things which, through the ordinary teaching of the whole Church throughout the world, are proposed as divinely revealed and, as a result, by universal and constant consent of Catholic theologians are held to be matters of faith. "

Pope Pius XII in his encyclical, Humani Generis, in 1950 (Denz. 2313):
"It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: "He who heareth you, heareth me." [Luke 10:16]; and usually what is set forth and inculcated in the Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due consideration, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter, it is clear to all that this matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among the theologians."

Lionel:
I accept the baptism of desire.So the quotations above do not apply to me.
I do not infer that that these cases saved in Heaven are exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.For me the baptism of desire is implicit.For you it probably is explicit.For me it is hypothetical.For you it is known in realty.For me it is acceptable subjectively .For you it is seen objectively otherwise why would it be an exception to the dogma ?. 
 he dogma?
 Paul:
The real clincher is, you state the letter from the Holy Office is heretical, and at the same time you are also stating that Pope Pius XII condoned it.
 
Lionel:
The Letter of the Holy Office in the first part supports Fr.Leonard Feeney on doctrine.It affirms the traditional teaching of the Church on the dogma. In the second half it criticizes Fr.Leonard Feeney for discipline.However you say on your website that the Letter criticizes Fr.Leonard Feeney for doctrine and that the baptism of desire is an exception to the traditional interpretation.This would be heresy.There is an exception defacto and known to the traditional interpretation of the popes and Church Councils? .
You are implying that Fr.Leonard Feeney is heretical for holding the traditional view and not claiming he could see or know cases saved with the baptism of desire. You are also saying that there is known salvation outside the Church.
You are changing the meaning of a defined dogma and the Nicene Creed ( I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin). This is first class heresy on your part. It is a rejection of a defined dogma and the dogma on the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra.
Your view about there being explicit exceptions, anyway, is the general understanding of the Letter of the Holy Office in the secular media.Sadly no pope or cardinal has issued a correction since the time of Pope Pius XII.
If any one, be it a friend or relative, claims he can see the dead, I would reject it. Since this is irrational.This is contrary to common sense even if a pope suggests it.It is also heresy for any Catholic to reject a defined dogma with alleged exceptions.And that too, exceptions whom he cannot name or identify in the present times.
Paul:
You are accusing Pope Pius XII of heresy by doing so Lionel. The fact that you have the audacity to accuse a true Vicar of Christ of heresy, claiming that you know better than he did, and that you are here to save the Church from the error that he allowed to propagate globally, shows you have have completely lost your faith Lionel.

Lionel:
My Catholic Faith says there are no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Common sense tells us that we cannot see the dead-saved on earth and so they cannot be  exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma. Your website states the very opposite.It cites Pope Pius XII to justify this heresy. 
_________________________________________________________

Paul:
All of this talk that you repeatedly throw at me about the deceased-saved, the physically visible, the physically invisible, rejecting "explicit" baptism of desire, etc. etc., is ALL nonsense.
Lionel:
I understand that this is the first time ever that you are exposed to this. For some 70 years a new doctrine is being taught in the Church and those who have opposed it have been silenced out of obedience or neglect.What I have to say here is not original.
It's also not popular.
When you state that the baptism of desire is an explicit exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus it is YOU who are saying that deceased- saved are physically visible on earth. So I have to speak in terms of visible (for you) and invisible( for me) baptism of desire.
 
Paul:
You are creating a dilemma in your head where there is no dilemma.
Lionel:
The dilemma was created in 1949 at Boston when it was assumed there was known salvation outside the visible limits of the Church.
 
Paul:
This dilemma that you keep speaking of, again, is not mentioned in Church teaching;
Lionel:
It is inferred when you say that the baptism of desire is an exception to all needing the baptism of water ( defacto) for salvation.You create the dilemma.
 
Paul:
the Church makes no distinctions with all of these things you are talking about, and it is not something we see discussed between theologians. Nobody is worried about it but you.
Lionel:
There are many good Catholics who understand perfectly what I am saying but in public they do not want to affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They will not even affirm Vatican Council II ( without the irrational premise) in accord with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus while they prefer to only criticize Vatican Council II ( with the irrational inference), while not mentioning the inference as the cause of the break with Tradition.They want someone else to do the 'needful'.
 
Paul:
You are creating creating a dilemma where a dilemma does not exist, and you are wasting my time by trying to get me to discuss it. I am not going to spend time discussing a dilemma that is only formed in your own head.
Lionel:
You have not answered the TWO QUESTIONS I asked you. They are rational questions.Curiously, even the sedevacantists are not answering it.
 
Paul:
TRUST the Catholic Church - she is infallible, and what she teaches on baptism of desire and blood is what we must believe, period.
Lionel:
Precisely. Trust the Church. The Church teaches the baptism of desire in its official texts. I accept it. The Church does not state that the baptism of desire is explict or that it is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This claim is not made  in Vatican Councl II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I accept this too. All magisterial documents affirm the dogma as defined by three Church Councils. I accept this. There is no official retraction of extra ecclesiam nulla salus by the Church. I accept this too.
You, Cardinal Cushing and Cardinal Francesco Marchetti-Selvaggiani claim there are known, visible in the flesh exceptions to the dogma defined three times. I reject this.
I affirm magisterial documents which uphold the traditional interpretaion of extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( which you reject with alleged exceptions in the present times).I uphold implicit for us baptism of desire.This is rational. This is traditional. It does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction.It is the Deposit of the Faith.
 
Paul:
Stop digging and investigating and questioning what the Church has already ruled on - it's heresy to do so.
Lionel:
I accept the dogma according to the Council of Florence 1441 and I accept implicit for us baptism of desire.So how can you say I am in heresy.Vatican Council II (AG 7) endorses it.
 
Paul:
As for Father Feeney, the letter from the Holy Office clearly states he was being

reprimanded for challenging doctrine. The letter clearly states, "Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a "Defender of the Faith," and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities...".
 
Lionel:
This is a factual error.There is no explicit for us baptism of desire. Implicit for us baptism of desire cannot be an explicit exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney. A hypotethical case cannot be a defacto exception. This is elementary reasoning.You indicate that the Letter of the Holy Office, an inter office communiction from one bishop to another,has made an objective mistake.The Letter indicates here that the deceased now saved in Heaven are defacto exceptions on earth, to all needing faith and baptism for salvation.We can see ghosts who are exceptions to a de fide teaching?
 
Paul:
He was blatantly challenging a traditional teaching of the church, and that is why they summoned him to Rome. His excommunication was not just a matter of disobedience - the underlying cause was a denial of the teaching of the Church.
Lionel:
If he was a heretic then so were the Church Fathers, Church Councils, the popes, the saints and the Church Fathers who gave us  Vatican Council II (AG 7).He was saying the same thing. There was nothing new which he was teaching.
Jesus has said that all need the baptism of water for salvation (John 3.5) and you are saying 'Not all.Since there are visible, known exceptions saved this year, whom I cannot name'.Jesus has said that those who do not believe will be condemned(Mk.16:16).You are saying that not every one who does not believe in 2014 will be condemned since you could meet someone saved ( in Heaven) with the baptism of desire, who of course, is an exception to Jesus' teaching.
Paul:
You have declared Pope Pius XII a heretic
Lionel:
I am in no position to 'declare' any one a heretic and that too a pope !. I am saying that we cannot with our physical eyes see the deceased saved in Heaven. This is common knowledge. This unfortunately is the premise used by Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani who issued this inter office communication.It did not have the seal of the Secretary of the Holy Office and  was not placed in the Acta Apostolica Sedis. Also its hasty and confusing style indicate it could not be an official document but something written spontaneously.Mysteriously it was kept hidden and then suddenly made public three years after it was issued. Also the same errors which Cardinal Cushing condoned,in 1949, he and the Jesuits tried to place in Vatican Council II ,where they were active.He never lifted the excommunication of Fr.Leonard Feeney even though there were no known, visible exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma.
 
Paul:
- you have lost your faith and there is nothing more therefore that we need to discuss. Pope Pius XII's approval of the decision outlined in the letter of the Holy Office coincides with all past Church teaching on the subject which I have summarized on my website, including teaching from several past popes.
Lionel:
None of the quotations have said that the baptism of desire is explicit for us and so an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.You cannnot cite a single pope or saint who has made this inference, which you make.
 
Paul:
Pope Saint Pius X for example. You are condemning all of them.
Lionel:
Pope St.Pius X no where has said that the baptism of desire is explicit and is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.They all took it for granted that the baptism of desire is invisible for us and known only to God.They have only mentioned the baptism of desire. You have made the inference.
 
Paul:
You tell me out of one side of your mouth that you believe in baptism of desire,
Lionel:
Implicit for us baptism of desire.Only.
 
Paul:
and then you deny it through the other side of your mouth.
Lionel:
Explicit for us baptism of desire is denied. Only.
 
Paul:
You're not fooling anyone Lionel, and you are in a very dangerous state.
 
Lionel:
Why are you finding those two questions difficult ? Even when I put those two questions to liberals , cardinals and bishops they refuse to answer me.
I suggest that you take your time. Discuss this with your friends. This is a lot of new material for you and it is contradicting what you believed in (explicit for us baptism of desire) in good faith.-Lionel Andrades