Saturday, January 10, 2015

Fr.Cekada-no evidence

Musings of a Pertinacious Papist
Comments on Fr.Anthony Cekada changing his position.

 Fr. Cekada Celebrating Mass

Dear Lionel.
...Fr Cekada really nailed it on the matter of doctrinal interpretation re Feenye's heresy and Bishop Sanborn (just one of many), rightly, observed the absurdity of Feeney's refusal to accept a free flight to Rome to try and defend his claims....

Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles (2000)
by Rev. Anthony Cekada
What principles must Catholics follow to arrive at the truth?...

Lionel:
I had been in contact with Fr.Cekada a few years back via the Internet. He thought those who support Feeneyism were in mortal sin. He has pulled down that report.
_____________________

Baptism of Desire and
Theological Principles (2000)
by Rev. Anthony Cekada

What principles must Catholics follow to arrive at the truth?
OVER THE YEARS I have occasionally encountered traditionalists, both lay and clerical, who followed the teachings of the late Rev. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center concerning the axiom “Outside the Church there is no salvation.” Those who fully embrace the Feeneyite position reject the common Catholic teaching about baptism of desire and baptism of blood.


Lionel:
The St.Benedict Centers accept the baptism of desire followed with the baptism of water.

________________________

Catholics, however, are not free to reject this teaching, be-cause it comes from the Church’s universal ordinary magisterium. Pius IX stated that Catholics are required to believe those teachings that theologians hold “belong to the faith,”...
Lionel:
Yes they are expected to accept the baptism of desire as a possibility, known only to God.
They are not expected to accept the baptism of desire as refering to known cases in the present times.This would also be irrational.

_______________________

In 1998, I photocopied material on baptism of desire and baptism of blood from the works of twenty-five pre-Vatican II theologians (including two Doctors of the Church), and assembled it into a dossier. All, of course, teach the same doctrine.
Lionel:
Fr.Cekada assumed that the baptism of desire referred to visible and known cases in the present times. This is how he interpreted the statements of those theologians.
I think he now realizes that it was an error.

____________________

Behind the Feeneyite rejection of this doctrine lies a rejection of the principles that Pius IX laid down, principles that form the basis for the whole science of theology.
Lionel:
To create theology based on us being able to see the dead now in Heaven is irrational.It is also non traditional.

__________________________

He who rejects these criteria rejects the foundations of Catholic theology and constructs a peculiar theology of his own...
Lionel:
It is a 'peculiar' theology which says every one needs the baptism of water in the present times but some do not. This is a contradiction.It is a new theology.

It is a peculiar theology which infers that we can see the dead on earth saved with the baptism of desire.
It is a peculiar theology which comes to the conclusion that the dead whom we see on earth are visible, objective exceptions to the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.

_________________


Dear Lionel. It was M.Js intention to bury your support for Feeney's heresy under an avalanche of sources...
Lionel:
There is not a single quote from Tradition before 1949 which says that the baptism of desire is known and visible to us and so is an exception to the centuries old interpretation of the dogma.
Not a single quote! Not a single source.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was a break with Tradition.

_____________________

But MJ doubts you will be able to convince others that Feeney was right and the Catholic church wrong.

Lionel:
I have quoted above an American Archbishop, a Benedictine Dean of Theology and an American apologist.They agree with me.
There are no known exceptions to the dogma. This is something fundamental. Even Catholics with no knowledge of theology agree.

______________________

Fr Cekada really nailed it on the matter of doctrinal interpretation re Feenye's heresy and Bishop Sanborn (just one of many), rightly,...
Lionel:
Bishop Sanborn, the CMRI priests and Fr.Cekada assumed that the baptism of desire was an exception to the dogma. This is irrational.This is also the mistake of the sedevantists MHFM.

____________________

If he really had "recovered" a key Dogma that had been lost to the entire world and that Dogma had to do with Salvation, then why did he refuse to tell the Church of his discovery?
Lionel:
He affirmed the dogma until death.He refused to recant.


In a prepared statement for the press the former Jesuit (Fr.Leonard Feeney) added: "The conscience difficulty is that the diocese of Boston, under the auspices of Archbishop Cushing, and Boston College, under the auspices of Father John J. McEloney, S.J., both notably ignorant in the field of Catholic theology ... are teaching that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church." - Father Feeney Is Dismissed From Jesuit Order by Rome
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1949/10/29/father-feeney-is-dismissed-from-jesuit/
_______________________

In any event, it is quite clear that your ideological defense of fenney's heresy also includes rejection of a simple doctrinal principle...

Lionel:
I accept the baptism of desire. I have not rejected it. For me it is compatible with the dogma.

_____________________

Of course, MJ, could release another avalanche of evidence (he used to war against the feeneyites on Free Republic for years) but evidence can not extinguish ideology -only grace can do that
.Lionel:
There is no evidence.None of his quotes say that the baptism of desire is objective and known in personal cases. So how can he infer that there are exceptions to the dogma.Ghosts are exceptions for him? This is evidence?

-Lionel Andrades

Continued
http://pblosser.blogspot.it/2014/12/extra-ecclesiam-nulla-salus-what-does.html

http://www.traditionalmass.org/priests/cekada.php

Edward Pentin refuses to touch this subject again, since he probably got the usual threats from the Left : Rorate Caeili pulls down comments

I am not saying that absolutely no one outside the Church is saved
Lionel:
Defacto in 2015 we do not know any one who is saved outside the Church i.e without 'faith and baptism'(Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II).So there are no known exceptions to the dogma in 2015. We cannot meet any one who will be saved without the baptism of water and neither do we know of anyone this year who has been saved without the baptism of water. So there are no exceptions to the Feeneyite version of the dogma. The cardinal who issued the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made a mistake.
(even if several popes and more than one ecumenical Council did make that exact definition, that “outside of which absolutely no one at all may be saved.”
Lionel:
They are not contradicted by Vatican Council II (AG 7).LG 16,LG 8,UR 3, NA 2 are not exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 and the 'rigorist interpretation' of the dogma.
I say that because we do know God is infinitely merciful and none of us know the eternal destination of any save canonized Saints. But I do fear that there remains even among quite orthodox Catholics a tendency to perhaps overstate just how likely salvation outside the Church may be. The guidance of the Saints tells us almost all of them believed it was not very likely at all.
Lionel:
Vatican Council II says all need 'faith and baptism' for salvation.Most people die without 'faith and baptism'. Most people are oriented to Hell according to Vatican Council II and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
 
But to the title of the post: obviously it is a nice thing to hope that all can be saved. But is it truly just, and charitable, to tell those outside the Church it is likely they are saved, or to wishfully hope for universal salvation, when there is so much evidence against that belief? Our Blessed Lord Himself told us there would be souls damned, and in fact said that MOST would be. So is it not unjust and uncharitable to encourage false hopes, to weaken evangelical/missionary efforts, to assuage our guilty consciences, and to shirk our own sacred duty by maintaining a strong belief that there is a good chance of salvation outside the Church? My sensus fidei, badly formed though it may be, says yes.
Lionel:
The Vatican Curia assumes there is known salvation outside the Church. They support the Cardinal Marchetti Selvaggiani error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.This is the confusion even among good Catholics.
 
In fact, I think the argument can be made that justice demands that, if salvation outside the Church is very difficult, that popular presentations should at least stress that much, if not default to the very long held public proclamations of the Church (and many Saints, as noted) that salvation outside the Church for practical purposes does not exist. That is the safe thing to do, the conservative thing to do, is it not, from the perspective of encouraging conversion and having true charity for the eternal destination of souls?
Pat ArchboldLionel:
The situation is made difficult when Tantumblogo ( on this Dallas blog ) and Patrick Archbald, Michael Voris and others assume that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma.
The National Catholic Register will not allow comments which support the traditional interpretation of the dogma which indicate most people are on the path to Hell.
 
Discuss. Have a blessed weekend. I’m out. And this post is a bit of a response to Pat Archbold’s post here, which isn’t at all indifferentist, but I think paints Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus in perhaps not as strong or positive a light as it should be. 
 
Lionel:
He thinks Fr.Leonard Feeney made an error and Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Holy Office were correct.
I also think the Feeneyites have long gotten a bit of a bum rap, not that I will ever make a hard claim that I know the eternal destiny of any soul, or that it is absolutely impossible for a particular outside the Church to be saved.
Lionel:
Theologically they are correct.There is no salvation outside the Church and all need to enter the Church with no exception.There could be people saved with the baptism of desire etc, which would be followed with the baptism of water. The baptism of water is the norm and there are no exceptions to it.
 They still have to acknowledge that empirically we cannot physically see or personally know any exception in the present times.This would call for a re-interpretation of Vatican Council II by the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.These are the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney,  the St.Benedict Centers in the diocese of Worcester and Manchester,USA. They are not willing to do this. This of course would put them in opposition to their bishop, and the liberal left,  who support the Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani error.
I am not saying that. I am saying, perhaps there was great wisdom and virtue in stressing the enormous practical difficulties of salvation outside the Church, and that perhaps we should get back to that time-honored practice, which was so commonly held by Catholics for 1900 years or so, which taught that salvation outside the Church was perhaps not totally impossible, but as rare as hen’s teeth.
Lionel:
There was no salvation outside the Church before 1949 and there is no salvation outside the Church after 1949 since the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are not objective exceptions to the dogma.
 
A final thought: we live in a culture that is geared towards indifferentism. The whole Anglo-Saxon heritage this nation received from Britain, and the history of how the Church of England came about and all the dissenting bodies, have left very deep marks on the culture that orient it towards religious indifferentism. This nation prides itself on “freedom of religion,” with the state at the very least keeping religion at arm’s length, and tending more and more towards outright hostility at least towards Catholicism. To what degree is the widespread desire to tout salvation outside the Church as a real and viable possibility colored by those profound cultural trends, and is Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus treated more widely accepted outside the Anglosphere?
Mobile
Lionel:
Rorate Caeili could not discuss extra ecclesiam nulla salus. New Catholic had to pull down some comments  after he got a warning from the Reformed Jew professor( according to Rorate) who teaches ecumenism at the Angelicum University, Rome. This was even though this issue is related to  the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
The Catholic Herald,U.K also had to pull down comments and stop any discussion on this subject because of charges of anti-Semitism.
For the last few years the community of Fr.Leonard Feeney in the Diocese of Manchester,USA  at their annual conference no longer have extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Fr.Leonard Feeney as a subject.
 
Cardinal Gerhard Muller and Archbishop Augustine Di Noia in two separate interviews with Edward Pentin of the National Catholic Register were asked about extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
 
They responded that the dogma no longer applies after Vatican Council II.In the sense , that there is known salvation to both of them, outside the Church.This is how they interpret Vatican Council II. The dead-saved  are visible exceptions to the dogma! No one protested.
Edward Pentin refuses to touch this subject again, since he probably got the usual threats from the Left.
-Lionel Andrades
 
 

Pat Archbold every one with no exception in 2015 needs to ' have their Catholic membership cards stamped and notarized' .This is official according to magisterual texts.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/01/pat-archbold-every-one-with-no.html

Pat Archbold every one with no exception in 2015 needs to ' have their Catholic membership cards stamped and notarized' .This is official according to magisterial texts.

Pat ArchboldOther Catholics, over reacting to the non-Catholic interpretations of the relevant teaching, overreact by going full-Feeney on the question, condemning all who don’t have their Catholic membership cards stamped and notarized.-Patrick Archbald, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus: A Question of Emphasis
 
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/pat-archbold/a-question-of-emphasis/#blogComments#ixzz3OPKjL7ly
Patrick Archbald, like the Society of St.Pius X and the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Fr,Leonard Feeney's community in the USA, does not realize that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII made an objective error.The same error is placed in Vatican Council II.It is not detected by them.
The Letter of the Holy Office made a mistake when it inferred that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
It also made a mistake when it assumed that there were previous magisterial documents which said that being saved with  implicit desire or invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma .There is no such reference!
Firstly it assumes that the baptism of desire etc refer to objective cases in the present times. Then it presumes that these objective for us cases are exceptions to all needing to be formal members of the Catholic Church for salvation.It is a fact that we do not know and cannot know any one saved with the baptism of desire. It is an objective error to assume that these deceased are personally known to us in the present times, as if we could name them.
Secondly magisterial documents only refer to the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance. Mystici Corporis and the Council of Trent do not state that these cases are known to us or an exceptions to all needing to be formal members of the Catholic Church.So their is no magisterial precedent which says that there are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
This was the error made in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and it was carried over into Vatican Council II by Cardinal Richard Cushing. the Archbishop of Boston.He was supported by the Jesuits and the secular media.The Archbishop had still not lifted the excommunication of Fr.Leonard Feeney in 1962-65 and he was still expelled from the Jesuit community.He refused to say there were known exceptions to the dogma.
 
Patrick Archbald has accepted the Cushing error i.e there are known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus in the present times.There are no known exceptions! There is no known salvation outside the Church. This was the Holy Office 1949 mistake.Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvagianni who issued the Letter made an objective mistake.
This was not corrected by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. He has changed Catholic theology with this objective error. It can be seen in two theological papers of the International Theological Commission which he approved . They are Christianity and the World Religions and The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without baptism.The New Theology is based upon this error.It implies that we can see the dead who are now saved in Heaven.
The Feeneyite position is the official teaching of the Catholic Church. It is supported in Ad Gentes 7, Catechsim of the Catholic Church 846,1257 ( in part, since the error is incorporated in CCC 1257),the dogma defined by three Church Councils, and the Nicene Creed ( I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin - and not three or more known baptisms which exclude the baptism of water).
There are two questions which Patrick Archbald could answer. 1 He could then review his interpretation of Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office and then 'go full-Feeney' .
 
Every one with no exception in 2015  needs to ' have their Catholic membership cards stamped and notarized' .This is official( AG 7, CCC 1257,846, Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441,Nicene Creed).This is necessary.Since he does not know of any exception and no Church document before 1949 said there are any.
-Lionel Andrades
 
1. 
 
TWO QUESTIONS

1) Do we personally know the dead now saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc,can we see them, are they physically visible to us in 2014 ?

2) Since we do not know any of these cases, in real life, they are not visible for us, there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, or Ad Gentes 7 which states 'all' need 'faith and baptism' for salvation ?
Is the answer YES or NO?






Something You Can Easily Do From Home Saved This Baby From Abortion

by Kristan Hawkins | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com 


January is always a tough month for the pro-life movement – Planned Parenthood usually releases its annual report at the end of the year with horrifying numbers of how many abortions they have done and we commemorate two US Supreme Court decisions that made abortion legal throughout all nine months of pregnancy for any reason at all.
IMG_6855
But over here at Students for Life, we just got some incredibly good news: our first baby save of 2015!
And this baby save is specifically due to the positive images on social media that this young mother saw and that she heard pro-life groups can help her.
Check out this email:
“A freshman at a community college a couple hours from [Mississippi State University] knew about our group through social media shares. She was an acquaintance of mine through group projects in a high school class a couple of years ago. She sent me a message with a picture of her positive test, ‘Hey…I’m pregnant and I know you’re pro-life and real involved in that. I wanna keep my baby. But I need help…Like I just don’t see how it would work. I heard pro-life groups would help me? Idk… I just need help…
“A couple days later we took a trip together to the Jackson area [pregnancy resource center]. [I] gave her a donated fetal development book for moms and some [Students for Life] hand-outs on her rights at school and her baby’s 8-week-old development. She was shocked to learn about the already-beating heart. Her appointment went well and she said she is praying for her baby every 5 minutes. She has a lot of fear and questions, but said she feels ‘supported’ to know I will be with her to see her baby for the first time at her sonogram appointment and “appreciative” of everything I could give her.
Thank you so much to Students for Life and Online for Life for creating images that I could share on social media that CHANGED this girl’s outlook on her pregnancy. They made her feel she could trust me and come to me without knowing me very well. I’ll never underestimate the power of a [Students for Life] image again. –Anja”
If you follow any of our social media on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram or Tumblr, you know how much stock we put in good, positive images. We want everyone to like and share them. We create them for that purpose.
Images are worth so much more than words and to know that our images have had this effect on a young mom – so much so that she CHOOSE LIFE for her baby – is priceless. So don’t be afraid to share our images with your friends. You may never know the impact that little choice you made will have.
Feel free to use the images below or the ones found on our Facebook, Instagram, tumblr and Twitter profiles.