Sunday, October 12, 2014

Dallas-blog has difficulty with extra ecclesiam nulla salus: are the dead-saved visible on earth or are they not?

Here are some comments from the blog For Dallas Area Catholics.he had to close comments with confusion all around.


1. skeinster - July 17, 2013
I have a good article from Fidelity in ’85 on this- I’ll make you a copy.
Main point: just as we don’t proof-text with Scripture, or only read them literally, Papal statements have to be read in context and given the correct hierarchy weight.
My question on EENS (strict interpretation):
When did this go into effect?
Lionel: During the time of Jesus (John 3:5,Mk:16:16)
Easter Sunday after the Harrowing of Hell?
Immediately after the miracle of Pentecost?
Think about the implications of this- the same implications the Church had to consider when the Orient and the New World were found/contacted.
IOW, the old devout Jew living in Athens, never heard of Jesus, dies the day after Pentecost and spends eternity in Hell, because EENS?

Lionel: If he has never heard of Jesus and is saved it is because Jesus sent a preacher to him and had him baptized ( St.Thomas Aquinas) or that he died and returned to be baptised with water (St.Francis Xavier etc).
Anyway, this devout Jew is not an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. He is not even relevant. Since he is not known to us to be an explicit exception to all needing the baptism of water on earth for salvation.
In 2014 we cannot know an old devout Jew who has been saved without the baptism of water.

Never gotten a good answer on that one.

tantamergo - July 17, 2013
Yes, it’s confusing. When I say I accept EENS, that is with the caveats for baptism by desire and baptism by blood. We don’t know who is saved. I just thought the statements were interesting, especially as a counter to universal salvation so prevalent today.
But, then again, those Jesuits, Franciscans, and others that came to the Americas and suffered horribly to try to convert the native people didn’t operate from the assumption that those people could be saved without baptism, at least not the vast majority of them. It is possible that people can be saved, but relying on some vehicle outside visible membership in the Church is highly risky, at best.

Lionel:Tantamergo(Dallas blog) assumes that those who are saved with the baptism of desire or baptism of blood in the present times (2013-2104) are visible in Heaven,Or, that they are explicit for us in some way, to be visible exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.
This was the error of Letter of the Holy Office 1949. This is Cushingism. It is with Cushingism that the Dallas blog otherwise, also interprets Vatican Council II and so complains about the Council.
There is  a choice for the interpretation but he is not aware of it.
2. dompedulla - July 17, 2013
You misinterpret alot of what you read.
Sincerely yours,
Dominic M. Pedulla MD, FACC, CNFPMC, ABVM, ACPh Interventional Cardiologist, Endovascular Diplomate, Varicose Vein Specialist, Noncontraceptive Family Planning Consultant, Family Planning Researcher Medical Director, The Oklahoma Vein and Endovascular Center ( Executive Director, The Edith Stein Foundation ( 405-947-2228 (office) 405-834-7506 (cell) 405-947-2307 (FAX)
“Concilium generale representat ecclesiam universalem, eique absolute obediendum” (General councils represent the universal Church and demand absolute obedience–pope St. Leo the Great)
Correct! And the Church Councils do not state that there are known exceptions. This was the yarn of the Americans in the Archdiocese of Boston and they were not corrected by the Holy Office in 1949.So they carried over the confusion into Vatican Council II.
tantamergo - July 17, 2013
I think the same could very well be said about you, Doctor. That’s not an argument. It’s simply yet another ad hominem from you. I’ve been more than patient. Goodbye.
Tantamergo gets mad at the doctor!
Even the doctor like other traditionalists knows something is wrong; the dogma is being contradicted but he does not know the precise reason.He is not aware of the subtle premise they are both using.
Tantamergo will soon close comments and even block mine.

3. J. - July 17, 2013
Charles Coulombe’s “Desire & Deception” is a short but worthwhile book on this topic. He comes down on the side of Fr. Feeney after examining a fair amount of historical evidence, but it’s worth reading if only for the texts he unearths.
I’m honestly uncertain how to harmonize the common belief in three baptisms (water, blood, and desire) 
“I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins…”
with the many doctrinal statements to the effect that baptism is of water only. Pope Eugene especially seems to directly condemn the belief in baptism of blood. The belief that there are three baptisms, or three forms of baptism, appears to have been popularized in catechisms like the Baltimore; as far as I can tell it has no roots in any magisterial statement.
The baptism of desire or blood can be harmonized with the Feeneyite interpretation when it is understood that these cases are implicit for us, they are invisible for us. So they can be accepted only in principle and not defacto ( in reality). They are only possibilities known to God and they are not exceptions to the dogma.
tantamergo - July 17, 2013
Umm, Augustine talked about baptism by blood. As did St. John Chrysostom. It’s been around. It’s this desire business that is much more recent, but I think it’s been around a few hundred years. I’m not sure how Magisterial it is, and I don’t mean that as a knock, I mean, I really don’t know.
Neither did Augustine or St. John Chrysostom say that the baptism of blood or desire is physically visible to us to be an exception to the dogma.This is a made- in- America theory.
J. - July 17, 2013
According to Coulombe, St. Augustine made contradictory statements at different times about martyred catechumens receiving the grace of baptism without the sacrament itself, apparently because of an ambiguous statement by St. Ambrose. I don’t remember if Coulombe writes about St. John Chrysostom.
There are some parts of the Council of Trent that sound like water baptism is absolutely necessary, and other parts that seem to say that a vow to be baptized is sufficient. (But a vow is not the same thing as desire.)
In any case, you’re right that there are many difficulties here. The Fathers seem to come down largely on the side of “water baptism only” with a few making occasional statements allowing for other channels of that grace. One might hope for clarification from the Vatican, but I think we all know how unlikely that would be.
It’s worth bearing in mind that Fr. Feeney was never formally charged with heresy. The idea that there is a heresy called “Feeneyism” is a fiction created largely by American clerics.

Water baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation is the teaching of the Church Fathers and the Council of Trent.
When the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 implies that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are explicit and so are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus then this is heresy.The text of the Letter actually says that not every one needs to be an explicit member of the Catholic Church.
Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member,...-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Defacto, ever one is required to be incorporated into the Church actually as a member...!
If one is not aware of this point there can be a heretical interpretation of Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic  Church.-Lionel Andrades

tantamergo - July 17, 2013
and thanks for the comment!
Sorry comments are closed for this entry

Sermon Padre Hewko Seminary Retreat October 8th 2014

The Listing Game

CBCEW plaque - front door
Sorry to plug the same blog twice in a row, but it's been a while since I saw anybody put together a good (or do I mean bad) list of problems with the Bishops of Eng;and and Wales...
  • The failure to preach about Humanae Vitae, anywhere, ever, by almost anyone;
  • The continued promotion of The Tablet, as though it were a Catholic journal, despite its dissent from Humanae Vitae;
  • The Filochowski/Pendergast scandal, when +Crowley was prepared to celebrate a Mass in honour of the 25 year anniversary of a homosexual relationship - a Mass eventually celebrated by the then-Rector of Ushaw Seminary, and attended by the bishop;
  • The failure of the Conference to back up +Egan’s important statement that politicians who voted against Catholic teaching should repent before presenting themselves for Holy Communion; 
  • The way in which  ++Nichols supports the 'Queering The Church'-led LGBT Masses; and the fact that his only clear statement on the subject was to tell those who questioned this policy to 'hold their tongues;'
  • ++Nichols' saying that talking about sin was a misguided attempt to motivate people;
  • The failure of  CES to hold anything approaching a Catholic line, and the appointment to it of a man who as an MP had voted consistently in ways that are diametrically opposed to Catholic teaching on, for example, abortion, contraception, 'gay' relationships etc.;
  • The Conference’s stance in favour of Civil Partnerships, which, it seems to me, paved the way for the disaster of Same Sex ‘Marriage;’
  • Catholic Marriage Care offering relationship support to homosexual couples;
  • The failure to correct the public statements of people like Professor Beattie, when she opines that Catholics may, in good conscience, ignore the teaching of the Church on matters of sexual morality;
  • The episcopal silence as Cafod has drifted away from Catholic principles (eg redefining abstinence in ways that are far from Catholic, and promoting condoms);
  • Personal conversations I have had with various bishops; for example one bishop (now retired, when I lived in another diocese) who told me that the Catholic Schools couldn’t teach the Faith, because many parents didn’t follow it, and their children might think they were doing something wrong.
  • The hostility shown toward +O'Donoghue for his 'Fit for Mission' project: praised by the Vatican, he was disappointed by the response of his brother bishops;
  • The welcome extended to the dissenting group ACTA and the contrasting hostility displayed to those who seek to defend the traditional Faith;
  • The promotion of educational programmes that are at best deficient and at worst heretical for use in our schools;
  • The silence around the whole +Conry affair;
  • The silence when +Conry was denigrating Confession (and his many other misrepresentations of the Catholic Faith);
  • The fact that +Conry's deliberate failure to teach on sexual morality was not noticed - because he was not the only bishop to be refraining from such teaching;
  • The '+Conry shrug' (exemplified in the link in my last post, but also practiced by ++Nichols when asked whether the Church would eventually bless homosexual unions);
  • The equivocation we hear from so many bishops whenever we might expect a clear explanation of any difficult aspect of the Faith.
CC Father doesn't mention the Birmingham Three, the destruction of Maryvale, the Cardinal Vaughan school, Birmingham Diocese sex education program etc...
The list just goes on and on.
Which leads to the question CC Father himself asks: what are the faithful to do when they no longer trust many of their bishops?