Saturday, November 18, 2017

Repost : This is what the SSPX and the St.Benedict Centers must agree on.The baptism of desire and baptism of blood are irrelevant to the literal interpretation of the dogma according to Fr. Leonard Feeney.

APRIL 8, 2013

This is what the SSPX and the St.Benedict Centers must agree on.The baptism of desire and baptism of blood are irrelevant to the literal interpretation of the dogma according to Fr. Leonard Feeney.


Once the traditionalists get this point out of the way proclamation is simple and clear

In any case, Bptism of Desire/Baptism of blood has absolutely no impact whatsoever on our proclamation of EENS and that's what is important.
Agreed!
This is what the SSPX and the St.Benedict Centers must agree on.The baptism of desire and baptism of blood are irrelevant to the literal interpretation of the dogma according to Fr. Leonard Feeney.
Once the traditionalists get this point out of the way proclamation is simple and clear

Here is the SSPX assuming that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.


Why not then believe the dogma "outside the Church there is no salvation" "...with the same sense and the same understanding - in eodem sensu eademque sententia"[3] - as the whole Catholic Church has taught it from the beginning, that is, including the "three baptisms"? Fr. Leonard Feeney and his followers give a new meaning, a new interpretation, to this dogma.

This traditional interpretation of this dogma, including the "three baptisms," is that of St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Fulgentius, St. Bernard, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Peter Canisius, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Pope Innocent II, Pope Innocent III, the Council of Trent, Pope Pius IX, Pope St. Pius X, etc., and unanimously all theologians (prior to the modernists). St. Alphonsus says: "It is de fide [that is, it belongs to the Catholic Faith - Ed.] that there are some men saved also by the baptism of the Spirit."[4]

The traditional interpretation of "Outside the Church there is no salvation," was approved by the Council of Florence (1438-1445). The Council Fathers present made theirs the doctrine of St. Thomas on baptism of desire, saying that for children one ought not to wait 40 or 80 days for their instruction, because for them there was "no other remedy."[5] This expression is taken directly from St. Thomas (Summa Theologica, IIIa, Q.68, A. 3) and it refers explicitly to baptism of desire (ST, IIIa, Q.68, A.2). Despite the fact that the Council of Florence espoused the doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas, it is astonishing to see Feeneyites opposing this council to St. Thomas!
http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_errors_of_feeneyites.htm
__________________________________

 FEBRUARY 1, 2013


SSPX PRIOR AT ALBANO,ITALY SAYS WE DON'T KNOW ANYONE SAVED IN INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE AND THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/02/sspx-prior-at-albanoitaly-says-we-dont.html


 JANUARY 19, 2013



The Baptism of Desire is a possibility and not an exception

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/01/the-baptism-of-desire-is-possibility.html


NOVEMBER 17, 2012



SSPX PRIESTS AND FR.LEONARD FEENEY'S COMMUNITIES BELIEVE THAT THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE CASES ARE VISIBLE TO US.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/sspx-priests-and-frleonard-feeneys.html


NOVEMBER 13, 2012



The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary are not answering the question: Do we know any one on earth saved with the baptism of desire?

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/the-slaves-of-immaculate-heart-of-mary.html


NOVEMBER 11, 2012



IRRESPECTIVE IF THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE RESULTS IN JUSTIFICATION OR JUSTIFICATON AND SALVATION IT IS NOT AN EXPLICIT EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/irrespective-if-baptism-of-desie.html


SEPTEMBER 27, 2012



EENS FORUM ASSUMES THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS AN EXCEPTION TO THE INFALLIBLE DOGMA ON SALVATIONhttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/09/eens-forum-assumes-baptism-of-desire-is.html


THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL II IN NO WAY AFFFECTS THE DOGMA OF NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH- Brian Hughes 
What has been declared at the second Vatican Council is no new dogma, but merely the reassertion of an ancient truth, and it in no way affects the dogma of "no salvation outside the Church".- Brian Hughes

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/09/the-second-vatican-council-ii-in-no-way.html#links

ROME HAS TO CONVERT WHEN THE SSPX ANNOUNCES RICHARD CUSHING WAS IN HERESY 



So if you say someone could be saved with the Baptism of Desire or if you say that someone could not be saved with the Baptism of Desire, either way, it is irrelevant to the dogma on salvation

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/09/so-if-you-say-someone-could-be-saved.html

AUGUST 19, 2014


I accept the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney and endorse an implicit for us and visible only for God baptism of desire

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/08/i-accept-literal-interpretation-of.html


AUGUST 18, 2014


Another baptism of desire list in which it is assumed that the deceased are visible to us

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/08/another-baptism-of-desire-list-in-which.html

AUGUST 18, 2014



I reject an explicit baptism of desire and affirm the traditional and centuries old interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.If it is not explicit it is not an exception

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/08/reject-explicit-baptism-of-desire-and.html

JUNE 13, 2014



I am referring to physics and not theology. Physically with the human eye we cannot see the deceased now saved in Heaven with the baptism of desire

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/i-am-referring-to-physics-and-not.html

FEBRUARY 5, 2014



SSPX must clarify that the baptism of desire is always implicit, hypothetical and invisible for us

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/02/sspx-must-clarify-that-baptism-of.html


SEPTEMBER 9, 2013


SEPTEMBER 9, 2013



Michael and Peter Dimond assume the baptism of desire is explicit and visible to us so they condemn St.Alphonsus Ligouri as a heretic

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/09/michael-and-peter-dimond-assume-baptism.html

DIMOND BROTHERS ASSUME THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS VISIBLE TO US AND SO CRITICIZE JOHN SALZA
I can affirm the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus alongwith implicit baptism of desire etc and I do not have to become a sedevacantist. They can do the same.

JUNE 9, 2012


“How can we be called heretics when the baptism of desire is not explicit?”-Peter and Michael Dimond need to be asked

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/06/how-can-we-be-called-heretics-when.html

APRIL 15, 2012


BAPTISM OF DESIRE AND INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE ARE DIRECTLY LINKED TO THE SSPX-VATICAN TALKS. IT IS AT THE CENTRE OF THE DIFFERENCES ON ECUMENISM AND OTHER RELIGIONS

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/04/baptism-of-desire-and-invincible.html

 MARCH 20, 2012


Bishop Fellay, Fr.Schmidberger,FSSP,Joseph Fenton seem unaware the baptism of desire is not an explicit exception to the dogma

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/bishop-fellay-frschmidbergerfsspjoseph.html

NOVEMBER 12, 2011


CATHOLICS ARE FIGHTING IT OUT ON TRADITIONAL FORUMS :TENSION OVER STRAWMAN SINCE THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE AND INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE ARE NOT EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOGMA OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2011/11/catholics-are-fighting-it-out-on.html

___________________________________________________

NOVEMBER 18, 2017



Theologically the St.Benedict Centers are rejecting the ecclesiology and salvation theology of Fr.Leonard Feeney and his times

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/11/repost-this-is-what-sspx-and-stbenedict.html

Repost : Have you noticed that physically visible or invisible BOD here has produced two different conclusions in the interpretation of Vatican Council II


JULY 21, 2016


Have you noticed that physically visible or invisible baptism of desire here has produced two different conclusions in the interpretation of Vatican Council II

Lionel,

To be honest, I am at a loss to understand your reasoning. There seems to be a lot of problems with it.  Reality is not limited to what we can see.  For example, have you ever seen an angel, or sanctifying grace?  If not, why do you believe they exist?  You believe it because the Church teaches it. 
Lionel:Yes in faith we accept this.This is the traditional teaching of the Church.
____________________________

 But the Church also teaches that a person can be saved without water baptism. If you believe this teaching is incompatible with the Catholic Faith (contrary to EENS), then you must accuse the Church of leading people into error, since it teaches that they can.
Lionel: Yes I have referred to magisterial heresy which contradicts what the Church taught over the centuries. When you'll blame Vatican Council II for contradicting Tradition, the SSPX and the sedevacantists are saying the same thing as me.Only I am pointing my finger at the exact cause of this break with Tradition.
______________________________

  And if you concede the theology, but then argue that no such cases actually exists, and that if one holds that such a case does exist, they are heretics (because their position is contrary to ENS), then you are again accusing the Church of leading people into error, since the Church explicitly teaches that people CAN be saved by BOD.
Lionel: The theology, the new theology is in error since it is based on explicit exceptions to EENS.The magisterium accepted this error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
___________________________________

'... how can you say what our position is?  ...(on)... the Church's theology, quoting the Fathers, Popes, catechisms and theological manuals (all of which are perfectly consistent). 
Lionel: The theological manuals,catechisms and popes are interpreted with the new theology which has a fault and is not traditional.The interpretation is based on physically visible baptism of desire (BOD)  and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I).Indirectly I know that this is your theology. The questions in red ( summary) were not answered.This was a give away.We have a pro-SSPX layman, a traditionalist, who in public is not willing to say that there are no physically visible BOD cases in 2016.This is further confirmation of the error.
_______________________________________

 The idea that there has to be "physically visible" cases of individuals being saved by BOD, and that if there are not physically visible cases, it has never happened, is not a good argument. 
Lionel: It is not an argument. It is not theology.
It is a physical description of our reality.It is about the physical laws of nature.It is about agreeing upon Newtons Laws of physics.It refers to our common understanding of the laws of light, movement, mass, velocity.It is agreeing upon a given.
The Buddhists and Hindus may not have my faith in Purgatory.However the Buddhists and Hindus would agree with my physical description of reality, the physical laws of nature.They are common to all people.
To suggest that BOD is relevant or an exception to EENS (Letter of the Holy Office 1949) would infer that there are physically known cases of persons saved in 2016 with the baptism of desire. Otherwise how would BOD be relevant to EENS. This would contradict the laws of nature which are common to all people. How can someone say that the BOD is an exception to EENS, or that every one needs to enter the Church except for persons with the baptism of desire(BOD)? Since this infers that we can physically see these persons in Heaven or on earth.This is contrary to the physical laws of nature which are common for Catholics and non Catholics.
_______________________________________

 Can you provide a physically visible case of a person in hell, purgatory or Limbo?  If not, why do you believe anyone has ever gone to heaven, purgatory or Limbo?
Lionel: In faith I believe this.I believe this with Catholic faith.
But I cannot believe that there is a physically known baptism of desire.Since according to the laws of nature we cannot see such a case.I am not compelled to accept this irrationality even as a Catholic.
As a Catholic I need to admit that this is a falsehood and is a deception.
As an honest Catholic, would you agree that there are no physically known cases of BOD and I.I in 2016 and could you say so in public? Can I quote you?
__________________________________

Lastly, I am pretty sure you hold the position you do because you believe that if a person was saved by BOD it would constitute an "exception" to EENS.
Lionel:  It would not constitute an exception to EENs for me since I do not know of any physically visible BOD case.BOD is always invisible for me so it is not an exception to the dogma EENS.
Similarly, UR 3 is not an exception to  EENS for me, as it is for Louie Verrecchio.
____________________________________________

  But that is not correct either.  The Church does not understand EENS as meaning that a person has to be a card carrying Catholics. 
Lionel: Agreed.This is the contemporary Church's position. It is based on physically visible BOD and I.I ( invincible ignorance) all without the baptism of water.Since there is physically visible BOD every one does not have to be a card carrying member of the Church, as you indicate.
___________________________________________

 All that is required is that they are joined to the Church, either perfectly (as a card carrying Catholic), or imperfectly...
Lionel: Only hypothetically, speculatively both could suffice.Defacto, every one needs to enter the Church with faith and baptism and to remain in it.Since there are no physically known BOD or I.I cases in real life to contradict the de fide teaching on all needing to be visible members of the Church; all needing faith and baptism.They both are visible in their expression.They can be checked and repeated, defacto.
_____________________________________________

I was thinking about your e-mails last night.  Here is what I think your position should be.  You should says, "based on the Church's theology, it is possible for a person to be saved without water baptism, but I don't think it has ever happened."  If you say that, I would not argue with you, even though there are cases on saints who died as catechumens. But if you claim that the notion that some individuals have been saved by BOD is heretical, then you are implicitly accusing the Church of leading people into error, since it explicitly teaches that people can be saved in this fashion.
Lionel: Yes I am saying that the contemporary Church is leading Catholics astray since their new theology is based on physically visible BOD and I.I.
We can check out this  error in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
1. If I assume that  BOD and I.I are not physically visible in 2016 then they are not exceptions to the dogma EENs on exclusive salvation in the Church.Since there are no exceptions all need to visibly and formally enter the Church.This is my position. This is how I interpret Vatican Council II.
2. When you and the cardinals and bishops of the Vatican Curia in 2016, assume that BOD (Lumen Gentium 14) 1 and Invincible ignorance ( Lumen Gentium 16) are physically visible in 2016 in known persons then they are exceptions to the dogma EENS on exclusive salvation in the Church.So all do not need to visibly enter the Church.
For Louie Verrecchio for example, UR 3 contradicts the traditional teachings on the one, true faith.

Have you noticed that physically visible or invisible BOD here has produced two different conclusions in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
So one of the two interpretations(1 or 2) has an error.They both cannot be correct.
One premise and conclusion is wrong.
One of the two interpretations is that of the Church, the contemporary Church.
___________________________

Lastly,...a little-known story of a person who was saved by BOD, and the Cure of Ars was involved in it.  And this person was a Jew who had definitely not been baptized. 
Lionel: Hypothetically a Jew can be saved in his religion. When he is in Heaven he would be a Catholic.God would have sent a preacher to him( St. Thomas Aquinas) or have him baptised after he dies( St. Francis Xavier).So this case would not be telling us that there is salvation outside the Church, or that there are exceptions to the dogma EENS.In Heaven there are only Catholics.-Lionel Andrades
l
1.
Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.-Lumen Gentium 14

__________________________________


Another baptism of desire list in which it is assumed that the deceased are visible to us http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/08/another-baptism-of-desire-list-in-which.html


Sedevacantists do not realize that the baptism of desire will always be invisible for us. This is not a theory of mine. It is a fact of life.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/11/sedevantists-do-not-realize-that.html

SEPTEMBER 8, 2015


The Council of Trent text does not say that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma EENS, it has to be wrongly inferred

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/09/the-council-of-trent-text-does-not-say.html

JULY 9, 2015


The Council of Trent does not mention the baptism of desire and the baptism of blood as being explicit or as being explicit exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/07/the-council-of-trent-does-not-mention.html


 JUNE 27, 2015

If you assume BOB and BOD are linked to EENS, then LG 16,LG 8, UR 3 etc will contradict EENS. Then V2 is heretical

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/06/if-you-assume-bob-and-bod-are-linked-to.html



JUNE 27, 2015


We cannot say that any particular person on earth today will be saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church but instead with baptism of desire.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/06/we-cannot-say-that-any-particular.html

 MAY 2, 2015


We humans cannot know of an extra ordinary means of salvation. So there cannot be any defacto exception to the ordinary means of salvation

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/05/we-humans-cannot-know-of-extra-ordinary.html


FEBRUARY 14, 2015



Every one needs to be a Catholic : Those who are taught or not taught, those who know or do not know about the Church, will be decided by Jesus.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/every-one-needs-to-be-catholic-those.html


FEBRUARY 13, 2015



In itself the baptism of desire is not a problem. It is when it is considered an exception to the dogma that the error arises

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/in-itself-baptism-of-desire-is-not.html



 SEPTEMBER 28, 2014😍



So if you say someone could be saved with the Baptism of Desire or if you say that someone could not be saved with the Baptism of Desire, either way, it is irrelevant to the dogma on salvation

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/09/so-if-you-say-someone-could-be-saved.html

AUGUST 19, 2014


I accept the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney and endorse an implicit for us and visible only for God baptism of desire

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/08/i-accept-literal-interpretation-of.html


AUGUST 18, 2014


Another baptism of desire list in which it is assumed that the deceased are visible to us

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/08/another-baptism-of-desire-list-in-which.html


AUGUST 18, 2014



I reject an explicit baptism of desire and affirm the traditional and centuries old interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.If it is not explicit it is not an exception

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/08/reject-explicit-baptism-of-desire-and.html


JUNE 13, 2014



I am referring to physics and not theology. Physically with the human eye we cannot see the deceased now saved in Heaven with the baptism of desire

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/i-am-referring-to-physics-and-not.html

FEBRUARY 5, 2014



SSPX must clarify that the baptism of desire is always implicit, hypothetical and invisible for us

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/02/sspx-must-clarify-that-baptism-of.html



SEPTEMBER 9, 2013


SEPTEMBER 9, 2013



Michael and Peter Dimond assume the baptism of desire is explicit and visible to us so they condemn St.Alphonsus Ligouri as a heretic

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/09/michael-and-peter-dimond-assume-baptism.html