The Letter (1949) can be accepted in its first part which is traditional. The second part contradicts the first part. It is irrational, non traditional and heretical.

Can you help me see where the Letter of the Holy Office of  1948 holds  the heretical view? That is, do you think it must  be interpreted that way necessarily? Lionel: 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 This is heresy. The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus  (EENS) states every one needs to be a  member of the  Catholic Church for  salvation. It does not mention the  baptism of desire etc as an exception.  Since the baptism of desire(BOD),  baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance can only be  hypothetical. They cannot be known  concrete people in our life time.This is something obvious. So for centuries they were referring to  hypothetical cases only. BOD,BOB and I.I  without the baptism of water can only be  hypothetical.  This is something obvious. So they did not  elaborate upon it over the years. For example St. Thomas Aquinas held the  strict the interpretation of the dogma EENS  as did  St. Augustine.  Aquinas mentions the man in the forest in  invincible ignorance but does not state that this is a known person saved outside  the Church. The Letter of the Holy Office in that line  above in red  assumes that there are  exceptions to EENS. If there are  exceptions then there would have to be  known people saved outside the Church. Invisible people cannot be exceptions. But BOD, BOB and I.I are always invisible  for us human beings. So if there was a hypothetical case, a  possibility, a case only known to God, it  still cannot be an exception to EENS.  It has no connection to EENS for us human  beings. In that line above and in the criticism of  Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict  Center, the Letter  used a false premise ( invisible people are visible) and  inference( there is known salvation  outside the Church) to also contradict  the Catechism of Pope Pius X 1 From the Catechism of Pope Pius X 16 Q. Is Baptism necessary to salvation? A. Baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation, for our Lord has expressly said:  "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into  the Kingdom of God." The Church in Particular 9 Q. State distinctly what is necessary to be a member of the Church? A. To be a member of the Church it is necessary to be baptised, to believe and  profess the teaching of Jesus Christ, to participate in the same Sacraments, and  to acknowledge the Pope and the other lawful pastors of the Church. 24 Q. To be saved, is it enough to be any sort of member of the Catholic Church? A. No, to be saved it is not enough to be any sort of member of the Catholic  Church; it is necessary to be a living member. 27 Q. Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church? A. No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church,  just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah,  which was a figure of the Church. 11 Q. Who are they who are outside the true Church? A. Outside the true Church are: Infidels, Jews, heretics, apostates,  schismatics, and the excommunicated. 13 Q. Who are the Jews? A. The Jews are those who profess the Law of Moses; have not received  baptism; and do not believe in Jesus Christ. 14 Q. Who are heretics? A. Heretics are those of the baptised who obstinately refuse to believe some  truth revealed by God and taught as an article of faith by the Catholic  Church; for example, the Arians, the Nestorians and the various sects of Protestants. So the Letter(1949) suggests invisible cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are visible exceptions to what the Catechism of Pope Pius X says above on exclusive salvation in the  Catholic Church. The Letter assumes that BOD, BOB and I.I  refer to  known cases of someone saved  outside the Church and then it infers that BOD,  BOB and I.Iare exceptions to the traditional,  Feeneyite interpretation of EENS.2 So the Letter (1949) presents known exceptions to the Syllabus of Errors on an ecumenism of  return when there are no known exceptions,  there are no known cases as such. The Letter(1949) does away with the past  exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church which  is supported by the Syllabus and the Catechism  of the Council of Trent. This is a concrete error.Since without this  irrationality in the Letter(1949) Vatican Council  II (LG 8, LG 14, LG  16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc) is not a rupture  with the the past Catechisms, the dogma  EENS, the Syllabus of Errors on ecumenism and the old ecclesiology . Vatican Council II without this error from  the Letter would be in harmony with  Feeneyite EENS, or,  EENS as it was known to the missionaries and  Magisterium of the 16th century. The Letter (1949) can be accepted in its  first part which is traditional. The second  part contradicts the first part. It is  irrational, non traditional and heretical. -Lionel Andrades 1 OCTOBER 2, 2016 Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston contradicts the  Catechism of Pope Pius X   http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2016/10/letter-of-holy-office -1949-to.html 2 JANUARY 10, 2016 They assumed that the baptism of desire referred to a case of  someone saved outside the Church then they inferred that the  baptism of desire was an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam  nulla salus  http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2016/01/they-assumed-that-baptism-of-desire.html _________________________________________

Medjugorje Mladifest 2018: Lord I Need You

Medjugorje Mladifest 2018: Bárka

Un Hosanna da Brividi dal Vivo a Medjugorje

The Vatican is covering up the error otherwise the Bishops Conferences in Germany, Britain, Malta, USA... could go into schism.So they have kept this story hidden : Cover up 3

There still is a cover up on Vatican Council II.1

The Society of St. Pius X(SSPX) interprets Vatican Council II with a false premise and this is  politically correct with the Left. No one announces that Archbishop Lefebvre made an objective mistake. When this blog refers to it there are no denials or explanations from the SSPX priests and bishops. They are all part of the cover up ( knowingly or unknowingly) on Vatican Council II.2

For me Vatican Council II affirms the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) but this news is being covered up. 3 This would be explosive news. It would mean that Vatican Council II has made an objective error and this cannot be the work of the Holy Spiriti and the error is repeated in Redemptoris Missio, Dominus Iesus and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II and popes Benedict and Francis overlooked the error.

The Vatican is covering up the error otherwise the Bishops Conferences in Germany, Britain, Malta, the USA...could go into schism.So there is a big cover up here too.

-Lionel Andrades

1

 SEPTEMBER 2, 2018

Repost : If Vatican Council II is ‘discovered’ to be traditional on other religions and Christian communities then the Vatican Curia will have to go on the defensive   http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/09/repost-if-vatican-council-ii-is.html

2.

SEPTEMBER 2, 2018

Repost : If only the SSPX could announce: 'We call upon Bishop Semeraro to please do the same. Affirm Vatican Council II as we interpret it.'

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/09/repost-if-only-sspx-could-announce-we.html

SEPTEMBER 2, 2018

Repost : SSPX APPEAL TO BISHOP MARCELLO SEMERARO TO ENDORSE VATICAN COUNCIL II WITHOUT THE FALSE PREMISE FOR AN AGREEMENT

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/09/repost-sspx-appeal-to-bishop-marcello.html

3.

SEPTEMBER 2, 2018

Repost : Vatican Council II affirms extra ecclesiam nulla salus for me

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/09/photo-vatican-council-ii-affirms-extra.html

________________________________________________

 SEPTEMBER 1, 2018

Cover up -2

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/09/cover-up-2.html

Repost : If Vatican Council II is ‘discovered’ to be traditional on other religions and Christian communities then the Vatican Curia will have to go on the defensive

OCTOBER 26, 2014

If Vatican Council II is ‘discovered’ to be traditional on other religions and Christian communities then the Vatican Curia will have to go on the defensive

Lionel:

If Vatican Council II is ‘discovered’ to be traditional on other religions and Christian communities then it is the Vatican Curia which will have to go on the defensive.

SSPX will have met the requirement of accepting Vatican Council II ( without the false premise), they will maintain their traditional doctrines and be given canonical status with the independence which they seek.

The first step however is to identify the irrational premise which all sides are using and then there can be a big change in the doctrinal situation vis a vis Vatican Council II.

Rome and the SSPX are using an irrationality in the interpretation of Vatican Council II. So a pastoral document contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Lumen Gentium is not dogmatic but if you consider LG 16, LG 8, LG 14 as referrring to cases who are saved in invincible ignorance etc and who are now in Heaven without the baptism of water, and who are visible on earth to be explicit exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus you get a Vatican Council II which is a break with Tradition. It has become dogmatic. In the sense, it has done away with the dogma on salvation and other religions.

There is doctrinal confusion within the SSPX which has to be cleared. When they admit it then they are in a position to correct Mons. Pozzo and the CDF.

The SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012 says that there are no exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus while the last comunique of Bishop Bernard Fellay (to Friends and Benefactors) says there are exceptions in Vatican Council II to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is confusion.

The same errors were made by the SSPX at their annual conferences in Rimini,Italy.

For me LG 16 LG 8, UR 3, NO 2 are not explicit in 2014 and therefore are not exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So why are they exceptions for Bishop Fellay, Fr.J.M Gleize, Fr.Francois Laisney and the SSPX District Superior in Italy, Fr.Pier Paolo Petrucci?

There is doctrinal confusion within the SSPX and in their interpretation of Vatican Council II while Mons. Pozzo is of no help.

He wants the SSPX to accept Vatican Council II interpreted with an irrational premise.This would be pleasing to the Jewish Left.

-Lionel Andrades

http://www.harvestingthefruit.com/pozzo/#comments

and Monsignor Guido Pozzo
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/01/and-monsignor-guido-pozzo.html#links

Repost : If only the SSPX could announce: 'We call upon Bishop Semeraro to please do the same. Affirm Vatican Council II as we interpret it.'

 OCTOBER 29, 2014

'We call upon Bishop Semeraro to please do the same. Affirm Vatican Council II as we interpret it.'

If only the SSPX could announce:

 

1.’We accept Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II which says all need faith abd baptism for salvation and so affirms the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. We call upon Bishop Marcello Semeraro, the Bishop of Albano to do the same. Affirm Vatican Council II.






2.’We accept Vatican Council II in which LG 8,LG 14, LG 16,NA 2,UR 3 are possibilities and do not refer to explicit exceptions to Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II. We call upon Bishop Semeraro to please do the same. Affirm Vatican Council II as we interpret it.‘Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation. Vatican Council II indicates all Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Mulsims and others need to convert into the Church, with faith and baptism, for salvation.
‘Bishop Fellay has said that the SSPX accepts Vatican Council II as a historical event and that he accepts 90% of the Council.
‘So an appeal is made to the bishop of Albano to also affirm Vatican Council II in agreement with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( with no exceptions) as mentioned in the SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012.
‘We appeal to the Bishop of Albano to interpret and affirm Vatican Council II as we do and set an example for all....-Lionel Andrades

http://www.harvestingthefruit.com/portland/#comments

Pope Benedict XVI and the Bishop of Albano made a doctrinal errror with reference to the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 , Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257-1260 and an irrational interpretation of Vatican Council IIhttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/10/pope-benedict-xvi-and-bishop-of-albano.html

Papa Benedetto XVI e il vescovo di Albano fanno errrore dottrinale alla Lettera del Sant'Uffizio 1949, Catechismo della Chiesa Cattolica e Concilio Vaticano II. 

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/10/papa-benedetto-xvi-e-il-vescovo-di.html

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2014/10/we-call-upon-bishop-semeraro-to-please.html

Repost : SSPX APPEAL TO BISHOP MARCELLO SEMERARO TO ENDORSE VATICAN COUNCIL II WITHOUT THE FALSE PREMISE FOR AN AGREEMENT

OCTOBER 30, 2014

SSPX APPEAL TO BISHOP MARCELLO SEMERARO TO ENDORSE VATICAN COUNCIL II WITHOUT THE FALSE PREMISE FOR AN AGREEMENT

The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) could announce that they accept Vatican Council II,without the premise( see blue section) and call upon Bishop Marcello Semeraro,the bishop of Albano, to do the same ( seered section). Then the SSPX announces that after the bishop of Albano has accepted Vatican Council without the premise( bluesection) they will accept the Council as such( see purple section).

The Society of St.Pius X accepts extra ecclesiam nulla salus without any exceptions as mentioned in the General Chapter Statement 2012 so they endorse Vatican Council II without the irrational premise.

 

SSPX Accepts

 

1.We  (SSPX) accept Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II which says all need faith and baptism for salvation and so affirms the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. We call upon Bishop Marcello Semeraro, the Bishop of Albano to do the same. Affirm Vatican Council II.
2.We accept Vatican Council II in which LG 8,LG 14, LG 16,NA 2,UR 3 are possibilities and do not refer to explicit exceptions to Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II. We call upon Bishop Semeraro to please do the same. Affirm Vatican Council II as we interpret it.
Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation. Vatican Council II indicates all Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Mulsims and others need to convert into the Church, with faith and baptism, for salvation.
3.Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior General of the SSPX,  has said that the SSPX accepts Vatican Council II as a historical event and that he accepts 90% of the Council.

 

SSPX conditions for the Bishop of Albano.

So an appeal is made to the Bishop of Albano to also affirm Vatican Council II in agreement with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( with no exceptions) as mentioned in the SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012.The SSPX appeals to the Bishop of Albano to interpret and affirm Vatican Council II as they do ( see above)  and set an example for all.

1.Please accept Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II which says all need faith and baptism for salvation and so affirms the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

2.Please accept Vatican Council II in which LG 8,LG 14, LG 16,NA 2,UR 3 are only possibilities and do not refer to explicit exceptions to Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II.

Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation. Vatican Council II indicates all Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims and others need to convert into the Church, with faith and baptism, for salvation.
3.Acknowledge that Bishop Bernard Fellay has said that the SSPX accepts Vatican Council II as a historical event and that he approves of 90% of the Council.

Agreement

Bishop Marcello Semeraro announces that he  affirms Vatican Council II in agreement with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( with no exceptions) as mentioned in the SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012 and is willing to interpret and affirm Vatican Council II as mentioned above setting an example for all.

After this announcement by the Bishop of Albano endorsing Vatican Council II without the premise the SSPX makes an announcement.

 

The SSPX announces that since the Bishop of Albano has accepted Vatican Council II in agreement with the interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus,they also accept this version.

Since the bishop interprets extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney, the Church Councils, popes and saints and not according to the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and Cardinal Richard Cushing, this is acceptable to them.

Since the Bishop of Albano interprets Vatican Council II according to Tradition i.e according to Feeneyism and not Cushingism; according to the hermeneutic of continuity and not rupture, they accept Vatican Council II without the premise and they reject Vatican Council II with the premise, which results in a break with Tradition.

Since all sides accept extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was interpreted over the centuries, there is no change in Church ecclesiology and the traditional teachings on other religions, Christian communities and religious liberty, in Vatican Council II. -Lionel Andrades 

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2014/10/sspx-appeal-to-bishop-marcello-semeraro.html

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

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.

COMMENTS

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 (www.noveinok.com, veininfo@drpedulla.com) Executive Director, The Edith Stein Foundation (www.theedithsteinfoundation.com) 405-947-2228 (office) 405-834-7506 (cell) 405-947-2307 (FAX)pedullad@aol.com

“Concilium generale representat ecclesiam universalem, eique absolute obediendum” (General councils represent the universal Church and demand absolute obedience–pope St. Leo the Great)

Lionel:

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.

Lionel:

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.

Lionel:

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.

Lionel:

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.

Lionel:

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 1949implies that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are explicitand 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

http://veneremurcernui.wordpress.com/2013/07/16/some-key-magisterial-pronouncements-on-extra-ecclesiam-nulla-salus-and-a-question/

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2014/10/dallas-blog-has-difficulty-with-extra.html