Saturday, March 17, 2018

Repost : Traditionalist, sedevacantist websites need to be updated

JANUARY 5, 2017


Traditionalist, sedevacantist websites need to be updated

Image result for Photo Bishop Bernard FellayImage result for Photo Bishop Donald SanbornImage result for Photo Bishop Mark Pivarunas
Here is a possible model. The traditionalist and sedevacantist websites, in fact Catholic websites in general, could state the following in future:

WE AFFIRM
'We affirm Vatican Council II in harmony with the Catechism of  Pope Pius X, the Syllabus of Errors, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Feeneyite), the Nicene Creed, the Athanasius Creed, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1995), Dominus Iesus, Redemptoris Missio and the rest of Tradition.
We assume hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are not objectively visibile in 2017.Similarly Lumen Gentium 16, Lumen Gentium 8, Unitatis Redintigratio 3, Nostra Aetate 2 etc refer to hypothetical cases  and so are not exceptions to the traditional exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.Invisible and unknown persons cannot be exceptions.
We reiterate that we affirm Vatican Council II in harmony with Tradition including the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) as it was interpreted by the 16th century missionaries.
 WE REJECT
We reject an interpretation of Vatican Council II which assumes hypothetical cases are not hypothetical and that there is known salvation outside the Church.
We reject the New Theology based on there being known cases of the baptism of desire etc, without the baptism of water.This is irrational.

HERMENEUTIC OF CONTINUITY
We call upon the two popes to also affirm Vatican Council II in continuity with the past : with the hermeneutic of continuity,just as we do.
Otherwise the present magisterium will continue to be in heresy and in a rupture with the past.
As a theology, we affirm Feeneyism which says there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS. We reject Cushingism which suggests wrongly, that there are known exceptions  to EENS and so there is salvation outside the Church.

FEENEYITES NOT CUSHINGITES
Our websites reflect our new position.We are no more Cushingites but Feeneyites.We believe that the Cushingite Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston made an objective mistake, when it assumed there were explicit, objective cases of people saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.We humans cannot know any such case if it did exist.It would be known only to God.
So the Cushingite Letter(1949) was wrong when it states not every one needs to be incorporated into the Church as a member for salvation.The Catechism of Pope Pius X and Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441 state the opposite.The Letter contradicts itself and is also contradicted by Vatican Council II, which states all need faith and baptism for salvation(AG 7).

UPDATE WEBSITES WITH FEENEYISM
So we update our websites by affirming Feeneyite- interpreted Vatican Council II, in harmony with Feeneyite EENS. We reject a Cushingite Vatican Council II with a Cushingite-interpreted EENS.
We interpret all magisterial documents without the New Theology,which has a philosophical error, it assumes invisible people are visible.

MAGISTERIUM CUSHINGITE
We are aware that the present magisterium interprets all magisterial documents with Cushingism and expects the traditionalists to do the same. They wanted Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre to accept Vatican Council II interpreted with a false premise and conclusion.He did not. They excommunicated him instead of showing him the alternative Feeneyite possibility.
____________________________
-Lionel Andrades








Repost : Vatican needs to begin reconciliation with the Most Holy Family Monastery : Clarification needed on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus not being retracted and still a Magisterial teaching in agreement with Vatican Council II and the Catechism

OCTOBER 9, 2010


Vatican needs to begin reconciliation with the Most Holy Family Monastery : Clarification needed on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus not being retracted and still a Magisterial teaching in agreement with Vatican Council II and Catechism

The Vatican could begin a reconciliation process with sedevantists by announcing that the Catholic Church has notretracted the ex cathedra dogmaextra ecclesiam nulla salus. There is no Church document which makes this claim. Instead Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church support the ex cathedra teaching outside the Church there is no salvation. 

Reconciliation with the Society of St. Pius X could also be extended to the Most Holy Family Monastery, NY, USA whose main charge against the Church was that it had given up the ex cathedra teaching. This is not true.

They also claim  that Vatican Council II is  contrary to Tradition and extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This also is not true. We reject the Jewish Left-Boston College interpretation of Vatican Council II and accept Vatican Council II according to Sacred Tradition and the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, Director of the Vatican Press Officecould easily counter the charges being made against the popes and the claims of they being in heresy. He can  simply point out that extra ecclesiam nulla salus has not been retracted and it is still a Magisterial teaching.So  the charges of heresy all over the Internet can be neutralised.

Also there can be no doctrinal understanding with the Society of St. Pius X unless the extra ecclesiam nulla salus clarification is not made.

There are charges of heresy and schism against the Catholic Church, the popes and dioceses and there has been no response theologically from the Vatican or any Catholic organisation. More people are being allowed to assume that the sedevacantists are correct.

Just as there is dialogue with the SSPX, reconciliation could start with the Most Holy Family Monastery who have an effective media presence on the Internet which is far superior to other sedevantist groups.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church supports the infallible teaching.Here is CCC 845

to reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son's Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is "the world reconciled." She is that bark which "in the full sail of the Lord's cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world." According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah's ark, which alone saves from the flood.
The Church is the only Ark of Noah that saves in the Flood. Everyone needs to enter it. Outside the Church there is no salvation.

CCC 846 also affirms the rigorist interpretation of the ex cathedradogma outside the church there is no salvation.

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it
All need to enter as through a door, this is the language of the Church Fathers on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

So according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church , outside the Church there is no salvation means 1) everyone who is saved, explicitly with the baptism of water and Catholic faith or implicitly, unknown to us and known only to God, are saved by Jesus and His Mystical Body the Catholic Church (CCC 846).2) everyone needs Catholic Faith and the baptism of water, and there are no explicit or implicit, exceptions that we can know of, to go to Heaven avoid Hell (CCC 845).Outside the Church there is no salvation and everyone needs to be a formal, explicit member to avoid Hell.

CCC 847 and 848 refer to those saved with a good conscience or invincible ignorance and who are unknown to us human beings but known only to God. They are saved ‘in certain circumstances’ ('The phrase 'in certain circumstances' is from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.So the ordinary way of salvation is the baptism of water with Catholic Faith; the explicit, formal means of salvation.)

CCC 845 indicates that the only way for salvation that we humans ‘know’ is the explicit, formal means which includes the baptism of water.CCC 847, 848 refer to hypothetical cases, a possibility known only to God and which we can accept only in principle. We do not know any particular case of invincible ignorance. Neither do we know any person whom Jesus will judge as having a good conscience on the Day of Judgement. So CCC 847,848 (implicit, hypothetical salvation) does not contradict CCC 845 ( the need for explicit entry into the Church as if entering a Door, as through a door).

All people (Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II,CCC 845) with no exceptions that we know of, need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water to go to Heaven and avoid Hell. Outside the Church there is no salvation.

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."
Here is the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, thrice defined and affirmed by Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 845,846) and other Magisterial documents (Dominus Iesus 20 etc).
1. “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215). Ex cathedra.

2.“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.).Ex cathedra.

3.“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.) Ex cathedra – from the website Catholicism.org and “No Salvation outside the Church”: Link List, the Three Dogmatic Statements Regarding EENS(Rasha Lampa) http://nosalvationoutsideofthecatholicchurch.blogspot.com/

Apologist Scott Hahn also affirms the same teaching.

SCOTT HAHN AFFIRMS RIGORIST INTERPRETATION OF EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS AND ALSO PROBABILITY OF PERSONS SAVED IN INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE AND THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE
___________________________________

Info on our Benedictine Community 
Most Holy Family Monastery • 4425 Schneider Road • Fillmore, NY 14735 • 585-567-4433 • 800-275-1126 www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com

The Founder of our Benedictine community:
Brother Joseph Natale O.S.B.
Brother Joseph Natale was trained at St. Vincent’s benedictine Arch-abbey in Latrobe, PA. St. Vincent’s Arch-abbey was the largest Benedictine monastery in the United States. In the 1960’s, Bro. Joseph left with the permission of the then Archabbot Dennis Strittmatter to start his own Benedictine community. Shortly after leaving St. Vincent’s, Bro. Joseph started his Benedictine community in southern New Jersey. Bro. Joseph never allowed the New Mass to be celebrated at his monastery, only allowing the traditional Roman Rite Mass. Bro. Joseph printed, distributed and sold numerous books, pamphlets and audio tapes defending the Catholic faith and educating Catholics about the true teachings of Catholicism. In 1994, the community was given a piece of land in rural New York. Bro. Joseph wrote and stated on many occasions that he would be moving the community to New York. But Bro. Joseph was not able to complete this desire, due to the fact that he died on November 11, 1995. After Bro. Joseph died, Bro. Michael Dimond, O.S.B. was elected superior of the community. Bro. Michael immediately went to work to fulfill Bro. Joseph’s wish to move the community to New York. In late 1997, Most Holy Family Monastery finally finished moving the community and its belongings to New York.

Bro. Michael Dimond O.S.B.
Raised in a family with no religion, Bro. Michael Dimond converted to Catholicism at the age of 15. Brother Michael Dimond entered Most Holy Family Monastery in 1992 at the age of 19, a short time after graduating from high school. Brother Michael Dimond’s father graduated from Princeton University in New Jersey and his mother graduated from Stanford University in California. Brother Michael Dimond was elected superior of Most Holy Family Monastery in late 1995. Bro. Dimond took his final vows before a validly ordained priest.

Our Community
As is obvious from our website, our community is heavily involved with educating people about what they must know and do in order to save their souls, which is the most important work of charity with which anyone could be involved. “Without faith it is impossible to please God” (Heb. 11:6). And without the Catholic faith it is impossible to be saved. Therefore, our work as Catholic Benedictine monks – especially in this time of the great apostasy – necessarily involves educating Catholics about the true dogmas of the Church and condemning the heresies that are rampant today. Our work also deeply involves exposing the counterfeit Catholic Church of the Vatican II sect, which is deceiving millions of those who profess to be Catholic. This counterfeit Vatican II sect – with its antipopes – is the primary enemy of Jesus Christ today. It is most dangerous for the salvation of souls because it purports to be the Catholic Church but it is not. This is why we dedicate much effort to exposing it.
We also work and pray for the salvation of all non-Catholics, producing and distributing mass quantities of information with the goal of converting them to the one true faith, outside of which no one can be saved. In our apostolic work (called an “apostolate”), we have distributed almost 1 million copies of our videos, audios, DVDs and books. The material that we have distributed and continue to distribute covers a wide variety of topics that are essential, including (to name a few): the necessity of prayer; the eternity and pains of Hell; the shortness of life; miraculous conversion stories; the authenticity of Sacred Scripture; the special creation of the earth; the refutation of the theory of evolution; the miracles and marvels of the Catholic saints; the importance of the message of Fatima; the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin; the Communist and Freemasonic plot against the Catholic Church; the evils of Rock Music; the false and invalid New Mass; the false Second Vatican Council; the false Vatican II antipopes; the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation; and many others.
We also have spoken personally to thousands concerning the true Catholic faith and a person’s obligation to profess it.
Our Community is dedicated first and foremost to Jesus Christ, our Savior, and the worship of the Most Holy Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Ghost)– the One True God – and the profession of the Catholic faith whole and inviolate. Secondly, our Community is deeply dedicated to the promotion of the Holy Rosary as the primary private devotion for a Catholic. Just as without the faith it is impossible to please God, so it is true that without a strong prayer life it is impossible to be saved. We especially promote the 15 decade Rosary, which the monks recite each day. We believe that the 15 decade Rosary is the key to the salvation of many souls and we encourage everyone to attempt to say it and promote it to others. The monks have personally witnessed the incredible transformation in the lives of many people through the 15 decade Rosary. The power of the Holy Rosary is truly amazing, and God has revealed that He has conferred even more efficacy upon the Holy Rosary in our dark days. St. Louis De Montfort recommends one set of mysteries at three different times in the day as an effective way to say the entire Rosary each day. We believe that the salvation of millions of souls hinges upon the practice of a true devotion to the Mother of God and the necessary foundation of a pure profession of the true Catholic faith.
In addition to the above, our community practices (and encourages others to practice) devotion to saints, not only by getting to know their extraordinary devotion to God by learning about their lives, but also by praying to them to intercede with God for us. We have posted on our website a few prayers to saints that we recommend (and we plan to add more). At Most Holy Family Monastery we recite at least one prayer each day to St. Benedict (our founder), St. Therese of Lisieux, St. Michael the Archangel, Jacinta the shepherdess of Fatima, St. Joseph, and St. Jude.



Repost : Ecclesia Dei, Vatican must clarify defacto and dejure analysis in magisterial texts for dialogue with sedevacantists MHFM

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2010

Ecclesia Dei, Vatican must clarify defacto and dejure analysis in magisterial texts for dialogue with sedevacantists MHFM

Church has not retracted extra ecclesiam nulla salus states Christ to the World magazine (May-June 1999 issue) published by the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate.

To invite the sedevacantists Most Holy Family Monastery (MHFM) into the Catholic Church, we first have to show them Church texts which uphold extra ecclesiam nulla salus, just as they the MHFM explain it.

We have to show them with pre-Vatican Council II, Vatican Council II and post Vatican Council II texts that there has been no change in the Church’s understanding of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

There is no Church text which is the basis for ‘a development of doctrine’ or a change of this ex cathedra dogma.

The MHFM believes that the Church is in apostasy and has thrown away extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Yet Magisterial documents show it is not true.

When Magisterial texts are analysed with the terms de facto and de jure, as used in the Introduction to Dominus Iesus, everything becomes clear.

The Magisterial texts will then indicate that the Catholic Church has not given up what the secular media calls ‘the rigorist interpretation’ ofextra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Here is the de facto-dejure  analysis which is important for dialogue with the MHFM and other sedevacantists.

Pope Pius IX in an Allocution, December 9, 1854 wrote (source not cited):
  
" We hold as of faith, that out of the Apostolic Roman Church there is no salvation; that she is the only ark of safety, and whosoever is not in her perishes in the deluge; we must also, on the other hand, recognize with certainty that those who are in invincible ignorance of the true religion are not guilty for this in the eye of the Lord. And who will presume to mark out the limits of this ignorance according to the character and diversity of peoples, countries, minds and the rest".
Pope Pius IX is saying de facto everyone needs to enter the Church, the only Ark of Salvation and de jure there can be people saved with invincible ignorance etc.
This is not vague. Neither does he contradict the dogma.It is in keeping with Tradition on this subject.

St. Thomas Aquinas held that everyone with no exception needs to de facto enter the Church for salvation while de jure there could be a man in the forest in invincible ignorance.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257 on the Necessity of Baptism indicates that the Church knows of no way to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water given de facto to adults with Catholic Faith and CCC 1257 also says God is not limited to the Sacraments, so de jure we accept that a person could be saved, in principle, without the Sacrament of the baptism of water.

 So if we say that everyone needs to enter the Church for salvation but there could be people in invincible ignorance or with the baptism of desire who  can be saved, without formal entry into the Church, then we must clarify this statement.
We could be precise and say, everyone de facto needs to enter the Church for salvation but there could de jure (in principle) be people in invincible ignorance or with the baptism of desire who can be saved without formal entry into the Church.

Now it is rational and logical and makes sense.

If we support the same doctrinal position as the MHFM on extra  ecclesiam nulla salus, and cite Vatican Council II and other Magisterial documents, then how could Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI be in error for the MHFM? The MHFM vilify the popes when the Magisterial texts issued by them affirm the ‘rigorist interpretation’ of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Similarly the communities of Fr. Leonard Feeney in the USA are now officially approved by the Vatican, and they have the same ‘rigorist interpretation’ of outside the Church there is no salvation. They are in accord with Pope John Paul II (Dominus Iesus 20) and Pope Benedict XVI, who never retracted the ex cathedra dogma when he was the Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.(Christ to the World magazine,May-June 1999 issue)

So if the Vatican recognizes the communities of Fr. Leonard Feeney then why not approach the MHFM and clarify this issue on outside the church there is no salvation.

If we showed the MHFM that we agree with them there could be no basis for their anger on the Internet and this could be the first step towards reconciliation.

When we use de facto and de jure analysis,dissenting professors at the Gregorian University, Urbaniana Universisty and other pontifical colleges and universities  cannot claim 'a development of doctrine'. 


For example they cannot claim that Lumen Gentium 16, Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Since LG 16 refers not to de facto but to de jure salvation. There is no de facto (explicit) invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire that we can know of.We can only accept it in principle (de jure).We do not know of a single case of the baptism of desire over the last 100 years.
So if LG 16 refers only to dejure (in principle, known only as a concept) salvation then it  does not contradict 'the rigorist interpretation' of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which has only one infallible interpretation.
So where is the basis of ' a development of doctrine' with reference to Vatican Council II (LG 16) ?
The official teaching of the Catholic Church based on Magisterial texts is the same as the MHFM.
1. Extra eccleisam nulla salus means everyone with no exception needs to enter the Catholic Church for salvation (CCC 845,CCC 846 'the church is like a door', Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II,Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, Ex Cathedra etc).

2. There is no baptism of desire or invincible ignorance  that we can know of, since only God can  judge when this grace  is given to someone 'in certain circumstances' (Letter of the Holy Office 1949).

So to begin talks with the MHFM and other sedevacantists we must be aware of the  de facto and de jure analysis  of  Magisterial texts. 


Also if we do not use this analysis, which the Church does in the Introduction to Dominus Iesus, , then we contribute to the confusion and we create differences and disunity when in reality there are no differences and we are in agreement on doctrine with the sedevacantists.

Also if we do not use this analysis we could be saying for example:


Pope Pius IX said everyone de facto needs to enter the Church for salvation and there are also  those who can  be saved de facto with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance and so everyone does not de facto have to enter the Church.
Does it makes sense ? Everyone needs to de facto enter but some do not!?
We could be saying:
St.Thomas Aquinas says that everyone de facto needs to be a  visible member of the Catholic Church for salvation and that there could be a man in the forest in invincible ignorance whom we de facto know and who could be saved.
Something is wrong somewhere?
We could be saying.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257 on the Necessity of Baptism indicates that the Church de facto knows of no way to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water given de facto to adults with Catholic Faith and CCC 1257 also says God is not limited to the Sacraments, so de facto we accept that a person could be saved, in principle, without the Sacrament of the baptism of water.
This is contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction!

With the defacto and dejure analysis however we have the basis to begin dialogue with all the sedevacantists.
-Lionel Andrades

Repost : Will Gerry Matatics leave sedevacantism ?

FRIDAY, JUNE 24, 2011


Will Gerry Matatics leave sedevacantism ?


Gerry Matatics has communicated to us that he is in full agreement on sedevacantism and the salvation dogma. That is to say, Gerry holds the sedevacantist position and also agrees that is the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church that the Catholic Faith and the Sacrament of Baptism are absolutely necessary for salvation with no exceptions for “baptism of desire”- from the website of the Most Holy Family Monastery.

I Lionel Andrades wish to communicate to all that I am ‘in full agreement with the salvation dogma’. I agree to the ‘infallible teaching of the Catholic Church that Catholic Faith and the Sacrament of Baptism are absolutely necessary for salvation’, and there are no ‘ exceptions for ’ a de facto, known to us in the present times, “baptism of desire”.

However I am a member of the Catholic Church,faithful to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI and his predecessor popes and I am not a sedevacantist

In 2005 apologist Gerry Matatics , Founder and President, Biblical Foundations International http://www.gerrymatatics.org/  ,did not know there was an alternative.

Now I am saying that the baptism of desire in its very nature is not an exception to the dogma, since it cannot be defacto known to us ever ; we do not know anyone on earth saved with the baptism of desire ,invincible ignorance etc.

De facto every adult with no exception needs to enter the Catholic Church with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation.

De jure in principle, as a possibility known only to God, a non Catholic can be saved with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance in the manner God wants.This would include the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, for me, since this is the dogmatic teaching of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Jesus said all need the baptism of water for salvation (John 3:5) and those who do not believe in Him in the only Church he founded, would be condemned(Mark 16:16). At that time there were no Protestant churches and communities.
We do not and cannot know of any de facto cases of the baptism of desire. So it does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, according to Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441.

-Lionel Andrades

Repost : Sedevacantists,SSPX, Supporters of Fr.Leonard Feeney have a moment of insight then they go back to their old position

JULY 11, 2011


Sedevacantists,SSPX, Supporters of Fr.Leonard Feeney have a moment of insight then they go back to their old position

MONDAY, JULY 11, 2011


SEDEVACANTISTS, SSPX, SUPPORTERS OF FR.LEONARD FEENEY HAVE A MOMENT OF INSIGHT THEN GO BACK TO THEIR OLD POSITION


Traditionalists not aware of traditional approach
For centuries there was no controversy in the Catholic Church on the issue of the baptism of desire. They assumed it was known only to God. Even for the Council of Trent the Baptism of desire did not conflict with Cantate Domino on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Sedevacantists (not MHFM) today recognize this is true in  e-mail correspondence with me. However soon they deny it is possible and revert to their old position, either pro or anti baptism of desire. There can only be two options for them.

Yet for centuries in the Catholic Church it was known that a non Catholic could be saved with the baptism of desire and this could be accepted only in principle since we did not personally know any case. We could not meet on earth a person saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance. So it did not conflict with extra ecclesiam nulla salus i.e. everyone needs to be an explicit member of the Catholic Church to avoid Hell, with no exceptions. Over the centuries they knew that the baptism of desire was not an exception to the dogma. This was the simple traditional understanding in the Church.

A traditionalist today can have any opinion on Justification, Sanctifying Grace, implicit salvation etc it doesn’t change the reality that all those saved with the baptism of desire are known only to God.

So whatever religious view or theory one holds, correct or incorrect, it does not change the reality that those saved with the baptism of desire are known only to God.

If someone in the forest is saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire and God sends a preacher to him it is known only to God.

If someone in the forest is saved in invincible ignorance or he has a genuine baptism of desire and God sends someone to baptize him with water, it is known only to God.

This issue was clear for Pope Pius XII when the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was sent to the Archbishop of Boston agreeing with Fr. Leonard Feeney on dogma/doctrine and criticizing him for discipline/disobedience.

The ‘dogma’ the ‘infallible’ teaching Pope Pius XII referred to in the Letter of the Holy Office indicated all non Catholics in Boston need to convert into the Catholic Church to avoid Hell. All, since, de facto, in reality we do not know any case of the baptism of desire.

The Letter of the Holy Office mentioned the possibility of non Catholics saved with the baptism of desire ‘in certain circumstances’ .So in principle Pope Pius XII was accepting the possibility of the baptism of desire. It is something which can be accepted in principle, de jurebut which never can be known de facto. This was known traditionally.

De facto every one needs to enter the Catholic Church for salvation. De jure there could be non Catholics saved with the baptism of desire. This does not violate the Principle of Non Contradiction.

In e-mail correspondence with sedevacantists, members or supporters of the Society of St. Pius X and supporters of Fr. Leonard Feeney I notice they first agree that there is no baptism of desire that we could possibly know. Then soon they go back to their old position inferring there is a baptism of desire that we can know of in the present times, so it contradicts the dogma.

To believe that there is no de facto baptism of desire known to us they fear could be a new theory or theology, something non traditional.

So they go back to assuming that the baptism of desire is real and known to us in the present times, in particular cases. They infer that we can know these cases in actual life. They imply that it must contradict the dogma Cantate Domino, which indicates that everyone must be an explicit, formal member of the Church for salvation. Since this would conflict with the Principle of Non Contradiction some reject the baptism of desire and others try to interpret it theologically and differently.

Since they do not make the defacto-dejure distinction they reject the baptism of desire completely e.g Peter and Michael Dimond.

Yet for centuries, before 1940, there was no known de facto baptism of desire and invincible ignorance.Since even if someone was saved with the baptism of desire it would only be known to God.

The Church Councils which gave us the dogma outside the church no salvation obviously knew about the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance. The Councils did not consider them exceptions to the dogma since reason tells us that we do not know any explicit case. This has been traditional  in the Catholic Church for hundreds of years and it is supported by Vatican Council II.

Non traditional traditionalists criticize Vatican Council II implying it contradicts extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They infer that we know, in the present times, cases of non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance (Lumen Gentium 16), a good conscience, imperfect communion with the Church etc.

When the Catechism of the Catholic Church mentions non Catholics implicitly saved through Jesus and the Church (n.836) it is assumed that we know such cases in the present times.

Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church are only repeating what was known in Tradition i.e. those saved implicitly (good conscience etc) are known only to God. So it does not contradict the thrice defined dogma.

SSPX members repeat on internet forums that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre said non Catholics could be saved. They criticize Fr. Leonard Feeney. They criticize the dogma Cantate Domino.

Sedevantists also maintain as a norm that the baptism of desire is defacto knowable to us and so some reject it since it could contradict Cantate Domino while others accept it in a new version of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, EENS Cushingite.So we have sedevacantists supporting EENS Cushingite(CMRI etc) and others supporting EENS (Feeneyite) e.g MHFM.

Supporters of Fr. Leonard Feeney criticize Vatican Council II assuming its reference to invincible ignorance, good conscience etc are a reference to de facto cases, knowable on earth. This would contradict Cantate Domino.

All are assuming implicit cases are really explicit for us.

Once they assume that implicit cases are known to us personally they imply

1. The baptism of desire does not exist since it contradicts extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

2. The pro and anti baptism of desire controversy begins.

3. They assume Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church are contrary to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

4. They create a new, non traditional doctrine and assume it is part of the Deposit of the Faith.

5. To support their view they quote Church Councils, popes and saints not mentioning if the reference is to de facto or de jure baptism of desire.

6. They cannot cite any Council, pope or saint who refers to baptism of desire cases known in the present times.

7. They will cite references to the baptism of desire and assume it is de facto and not de jure i.e. accepted only in principle, as a concept.
This is all the confusion which arises since they do not differentiate between EENS Cushingite and Feeneyite, Vatican Council II Cushingite and Feeneyite, BOD,BOB and I.I(Cushingite or Feeneyite) etc.

-Lionel Andrades


Photos  of Venerable Pope Pius XII and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre meeting Padre Pio.

Sedevacantism based on Vatican Council II(Cushingite), with the for and against EENS method of reading the text will become obsolete.Traditionalists and liberals too will have to switch to for and neutral to EENS method.

Remember if you read the text of Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) with the for and neutral to EENS method instead of the for and against EENS method there are two different conclusions. With the for and against EENS  method, the result, I call Cushingism and with the for and neutral to EENS method the conclusion I call Feeneyism.
So there is a Vatican Council II(Cushingite) and a Vatican Council II(Feeneyite).Vatican Council II (C) is a rupture with EENS and Tradition and Vatican Council II(F) is in harmony.
For me Vatican Council II is Feeneyite for the sedevacantists, traditionalists and liberals, the Council is Cushingite.
It is the same Council but for them it is a rupture with Tradition and for me it is not.
The for and against EENS method of reading Vatican Council II comes from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston. The Letter assumed hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance were non hypothetical and actually known people saved outside the Church, without the baptism  of water and Catholic faith.So BOD, BOB and I.I were considered exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.
BOD,BOB and I.I were seen as physically visible people. They were considered personally known people.In this way they were projected as exceptions to the EENS.
So the inference was wrong.
Since there are no such known people.
So based on this false inference we use the for and against  EENS method when reading Vatican Council II.We infer that there are known cases of BOD and I.I and so the passage becomes Cushingite. Then we conclude that the passage and Vatican Council II is a rupture with Tradition.
At Vatican Council II they used the principle of hypothetical cases being known exceptions to the dogma EENS in the present times, to name other hypothetical cases , as if they could also be exceptions to EENS.So the reader must be aware of this when reading the Council-text.
So from BOD, BOB and I.I they thought out other possibilities, like ' seeds of the Word'(AG 11), 'imperfect communion with the Church'(UR 3),'elements of sanctification and truth' in other religions which could be salvific(LG 8), the true Church subsisting outside its visible boundaries (LG 8),people of good will being saved (GS 22) etc.
These are all hypothetical cases and are not exceptions to the norm for salvation, which is faith and baptism in the Catholic Church; membership in the Catholic Church.
So the for and against EENS method of reading Vatican Council II is based on an irrationality.It is an innovative and false way of reading the Council-text.
We can switch to the for and neutral to EENS method and so the passages which would be Cushingite become Feeneyite and are no more interpreted as a rupture with Tradition.
So over time there will not be Catholics reading Vatican Council II or the Catechisms with the for and against EENS method. Vatican Council II will be read in harmony with the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.
Sedevacantism based on Vatican Council II(Cushingite), with the for and against EENS method of reading the text , will become obsolete.Traditionalists and liberals too will have to switch to the for and neutral to EENS method.-Lionel Andrades