Repost : Long lists of Baptism of Desire and Blood do not mention any exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus -2 ( The Crossroads at 23rd Street )

MARCH 27, 2017

Long lists of Baptism of Desire and Blood do not mention any exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus -2

CONTINUED

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/03/long-lists-of-baptism-of-desire-and.html

14. FR. DOMINIC PRUMMER, O.P., Moral Theology, 1949:

• “Baptism of Desire which is a perfect act of charity that includes at least implicitly the desire for Baptism by water”;
• “Baptism of Blood which signifies martyrdom endured for Christ prior to the reception of Baptism by Water”;
• “Regarding the effects of Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire... both cause sanctifying grace. ...Baptism of Blood usually remits all venial sin and temporal punishment...”

Lionel : Once again this pirest refers to a hypothetical case. So this is not relevant to EENS.

____________________________

15. FR. FRANCIS O’CONNELL, Outlines of Moral Theology, 1953:

• “Baptism of Desire... is an act of divine charity or perfect contrition...”
• “These means (i.e. Baptism of Blood and Desire) presuppose in the recipient at least the implicit will to receive the sacrament.”
• “...Even if an infant can gain the benefit of the Baptism of Blood if he is put to death by a person actuated by hatred for the Christian faith....”

Lionel : I repeat once again this priest refers to a hypothetical case. So this is not relevant to EENS

_______________________________

16. MGR. J. H. HERVE, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae (Vol. III: chap. IV), 1931

II. On those for whom Baptism of water can be supplied:

The various baptisms: from the Tridentinum itself and from the things stated, it stands firm that Baptism is necessary, yet in fact or in desire; therefore in an extraordinary case it can be supplied. Further, according to the Catholic doctrine, there are two things by which the sacrament of Baptism can be supplied: namely, an act of perfect charity with the desire of Baptism, and the death as martyr. Since these two are a compensation for Baptism of water, they themselves are called Baptism, too, in order that they may be comprehended with it under one, as it were, generic name, so the act of love with desire for Baptism is called Baptismus flaminis (Baptism of the Spirit) and the martyrium (Baptism of Blood).

Lionel: 'therefore in an extraordinary case it can be supplied.'In an extraordinary case the baptism of water can be supplied.Yes.

_____________________________________

17. FR. H. NOLDEN, S.J., FR. A. SCHMIT, S.J. — Summa theologiae moralis (Vol. III de Sacramentis), Book 2 Quaestio prima, 1921

Baptism of spirit (flaminis) is perfect charity or contrition, in which the desire in fact to receive the sacrament of Baptism is included; perfect charity and perfect contrition, however, have the power to confer sanctifying grace.

Lionel : Once again ths is a reference to a hypothetical case. So it is not relevant to EENS.It is not an exception. The baptism of desire is not an exception to Feeneyite EENS.

_______________________________

18. FR. ARTHUR VERMEERSCH, S.J., Theologiae Moralis (Vol. III), Tractatus II, 1948:

The Baptism of spirit (flaminis) is an act of perfect charity or contrition, in so far as it contains at least a tacit desire of the Sacrament. Therefore it can be had only in adults. It does not imprint a character; ...but it takes away all mortal sin together with the sentence of eternal penalty, according to: “He who loves me, is loved by my Father” (John 14:21).

Lionel: This is said in faith, speculation with good will but not a concrete case. Since all salvation is seen and know in specific cases only by God. The Church can declare someone a saint for example but no one on earth could say that they have seen that saint in Heaven without the baptism of water and instead with the baptism of desire.

______________________

19. FR. LUDOVICO BILLOT, S.J., De Ecclesiae Sacmmentis (Vol. I); Quaestio LXVI; Thesis XXIV - 1931:

Baptism of spirit (flaminis), which is also called of repentance or of desire, is nothing else than an act of charity or perfect contrition including a desire of the Sacrament, according to what has been said above, namely that the heart of everyone is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe, and to love God, and to be sorry for his sins.

Lionel:  I repeat once again this priest refers to a hypothetical case. So this is not relevant to EENS

______________________

20. FR. ALOYSIA SABETTI, S.J., FR. TIMOTHEO BARRETT, S.J., Compendium Theologiae Moralis, Tractatus XII [De Baptismo, Chapter I, 1926:

Baptism, the gate and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire, is necessary for all unto salvation...

>From the Baptism of water, which is called of river (Baptismus fluminis), is from Baptism of the Spirit (Baptismus flaminis) and Baptism of Blood, by which Baptism properly speaking can be supplied, if this be impossible. The first one is a full conversion to God through perfect contrition or charity, in so far as it contains an either explicit or at least implicit will to receive Baptism of water... Baptism of Spirit (flaminis) and Baptism of Blood are called Baptism of desire (in voto).

 Lionel: I repeat once again this priest refers to a hypothetical case. So this is not relevant to EENS

_______________________________________

21. FR. EDUARDUS GENICOT, S.]., Theologiae Moralis Institutiones (Vol. II), Tractatus XII, 1902

Baptism of the Spirit (flaminis) consists in an act of perfect charity or contrition, with which there is always an infusion of sanctifying grace connected...

Both are called “of desire” (in voto)...; perfect charity, because it has always connected the desire, at least the implicit one, of receiving this sacrament, absolutely necessary for salvati -CMRI Home

Lionel: I repeat once again this Jesuit priest refers to a hypothetical case. So it is not relevant to EENS.-Lionel Andrades

March 27, 2017

Long lists of Baptism of Desire and Blood do not mention any exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salushttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/03/long-lists-of-baptism-of-desire-and.html

 MARCH 27, 2017

Council of Trent can be interpreted with Feeneyism or Cushingism

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/03/council-of-trent-can-be-interpreted.html

MARCH 27, 2017

Long lists of Baptism of Desire and Blood do not mention any exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus -2

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/03/long-lists-of-baptism-of-desire-and_27.html

March 27, 2017

Long lists of Baptism of Desire and Blood do not mention any exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/03/long-lists-of-baptism-of-desire-and.html________________________________________________________

Colin B. Donovan - liberal theologian ( The Crossroads at 23rd Street )

Colin B. Donovan and the liberal website 1 which cites him, assumes invincible ignorance (I.I) refers to known  non Catholics saved outside the Church, without the baptism of water and that I.I is the ordinary and general way of salvation, instead of 'faith and baptism'(Ad Gentes 7) being the ordinary way of salvation.

Similarly at Vatican Council II, the Council Fathers assumed invincible ignorance was the ordinary way of salvation since there  were known non Catholics saved outside the Church in invincible ignorance. So it became an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). So in Ad Gentes 7 they inserted the line:made known by the Church's preaching.2

In other words they were not in ignorance.Invincible ignorance are known exceptions to EENS.This was their convoluted reasoning.The precedent was set in 1949.

They were influenced by the Letter of the Holy Office 1949  which also assumed there were personally known people saved outside the Church, in invincible ignorance.They were saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. This was an objective exception to Feeneyite EENS for them.

If someone is saved in invincible ignorance it would only be known to God.If there was an exception it would not be known to us humans.So invincible ignorance never ever was relevant to EENS as an exception.

Assuming 'for arguements sake', that a non Catholic was saved in invincible ignorance outside the Church, contradicting the dogmatic teaching on salvation, it would still not be known to us.

The liberal theologians wanted to create this confusion and so eliminate the dogma EENS. 

A dogma defined by three Church Councils , Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger calls an 'aphorism' in his Catechism(1994) which is covered with the New Theology, which a reader has to detect and avoid.

The New Theology in the Catholic Church today is based upon invisible cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance allegedly being visible and objective exceptions to the traditional teaching on all needing to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation.Instead of no salvation outside the Church the teaching now is that there is salvation outside the Church.

So Colin B. Donovan apologist for EWTN not only infers that there are known cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church in invincible ignorance, he goes a step further, he assumes this is the ordinary way of salvation, the norm.The unknown exception makes the rule for him.

Since in principle, hypothetical cases ( invincible ignorance etc) are objective examples of salvation outside the Church, he interprets Vatican Council II (LG 8, LG 16 etc) as a rupture with EENS and the rest of Tradition( Syllabus of Errors etc).

He violates the Principle of Non Contradiction.Since non Catholics saved outside the church would be in Heaven for him and they would be visible to him on earth for them to be exceptions to EENS.So they would have to be present at two places at the same time.This is the irrationality he uses to reject Tradition.-Lionel Andrades

1.

http://www.23rdstreet.com/video_texts/what_catholics_need_to_know.aspx


2.

Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. -Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II.

(All must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching and also not made known by the Church's teaching. Since there are no known exceptions to invincible ignorance which are objective objections on the de fide teaching on the necessity to be a member of the Church for salvation)

OCTOBER 3, 2018

If the See of Peter would interpret extra ecclesiam nulla salus with rational and traditional Feeneyism instead of irrational Cushingism then the sedevacantists may want to return to the old Church, with the old ecclesiology which has not changed with Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite)

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/10/if-see-of-peter-would-interpret-extra.html

OCTOBER 3, 2018

Apologist Colin B. Donovan, STL assumes invincible ignorance 1) refers to known people saved outside the general faith and moral teachings of the Catholic Church and that they are known exceptions to the rule.2) He further infers that invincble ignorances is the ordinary way of salvation

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/10/apologist-colin-b-donovan-stl-assumes.html

Repost : Can you interpret Vatican Council II, EENS, BOD and I.I with Cushingism and Feeneyism? : The Emperor Valentinian II was on the way to Milan to be baptized ...

 MARCH 15, 2017

Can you interpret Vatican Council II, EENS, BOD and I.I with Cushingism and Feeneyism?

The Emperor Valentinian II was on the way to Milan to be baptized when he was assassinated; St. Ambrose said of him that his desire had been the means of his cleansing.

So could St.Ambrose physically see the Emperor saved in Heaven or did he speculate and hope that he was saved ?

If St.Ambrose could see the Emperor in Heaven or on earth saved without the baptism of water, then the Emperor was an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). If he could not physically see him, saved without the baptism of water, then the Emperor is not an exception.

For there to be an exception to EENS there has to be an actual person saved outside the Church.There must be some one real, who is saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church and who is known to us.

A speculative case cannot be an objective exception to the teaching on all needing faith and baptism (AG 7, Vatican Council II) for salvation. The Catechism of Popè Pius X says all need  to be members of the Church for salvation. This means all need faith and the baptism of water for salvation.This is the traditional norm. The ordinary way of salvation.

Did the Emperor meet the norm? How can we know ? We cannot. This would only be known to God. If there are exceptions it would only be known to God.

We can hope only, like St.Ambrose that the Emperor was saved.

So Cushingites cite the case of the Emperor as an exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS and the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.
Feeneyites reject the Emperor being an example of salvation outside the Church. Since no one can physically see exceptions to the dogma EENS.

This is an important point since it determines how we interpret Vatican Council II, EENS, the baptism of desire, invincible ignorance etc.

Can you interpret Vatican Council II, EENS, BOD and I.I with Cushingism or Feeneyism? 

Do you understand what I am trying to get at?

When there are no physical cases of BOD and I.I then it is Feeneyism.

When it is assumed that there are physically known cases in the past or future  of BOD and I.I then it is Cushingism.

So when St. Thomas Aquinas mentioned the man in the forest in ignorance who would be saved when God would send a preacher to him is this case of Feeneyism or Cushingism for you? Why?
St.Thomas Aquinas and St.Augustine were Feeneyites, always.

-Lionel Andrades

The Crossroads at 23rd Street - If the See of Peter would interpret extra ecclesiam nulla salus with rational and traditional Feeneyism instead of irrational Cushingism then the sedevacantists may want to return to the old Church, with the old ecclesiology which has not changed with Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite).

Also unfortunate for such souls is the fact that these ultra-traditionalist groups profess to be doctrinally orthodox, an orthodoxy which necessarily includes the teaching that Outside the Church There Is No Salvation. This means that someone who has formally separated himself from the Church through heresy or schism, or knowing the Church to be true failed to enter her, cannot be saved, unless of course they renounce their own will and reconcile with the Church. Unlike the non-Catholic Christian, can the super-orthodox claim invincible ignorance of this teaching? Can they escape the condemnation of Pope Boniface VIII, who in first elaborating it said, "this authority, although it is given to man and is exercised by man, is not human, but rather divine, and has been given by the divine Word to Peter himself and to his successors in him, whom the Lord acknowledged an established rock, when he said to Peter himself: Whatsoever you shall bind etc. [Matt. 16:19]. Therefore, whosoever resists this power so ordained by God, resists the order of God ...? No wonder that given enough time such groups inevitably produce those who claim that the See of Peter is vacant, since the logic of their schismatic attitude is ultimately irreconcilable with the doctrine of papal primacy, as enunciated by both Pope Boniface and Vatican I.-Colin B.Donovan, EWTN etc.
http://www.23rdstreet.com/video_texts/what_catholics_need_to_know.aspx


With comments:-

Also unfortunate for such souls is the fact that these ultra-traditionalist groups profess to be doctrinally orthodox, an orthodoxy which necessarily includes the teaching that Outside the Church There Is No Salvation. 
Lionel: Outside the Church There Is No Salvation can be interpreted with Feeneyism( physically invisible cases of invincible ignorance are invisible in 2018) or Cushingism ( physically invisible cases of invincible ignorance in 2018, or over the last 50 years, are physically objective and so are exceptions to the traditional teaching on all needing to be members of the Church for salvation).
I interpreted Outside the Church There Is No Salvation with Feeneyism while Donovn and the traditionalists of the SSPX etc, use Cushingism.
______________________

This means that someone who has formally separated himself from the Church through heresy or schism, or knowing the Church to be true failed to enter her, cannot be saved, unless of course they renounce their own will and reconcile with the Church.
Lionel: This is the Cushingite approach.
For me also those who do not know about Jesus and the Church and its necessity for salvation, as was the case of the natives in the America's before Columbus went there, were also oriented to Hell.
This is the Feeneyite approach to Outside the Church there is no salvation. By Feeneyite, I mean, a philosophical way of looking at this subject rationally. I am not referring to actual person of Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston here.
___________________

 Unlike the non-Catholic Christian, can the super-orthodox claim invincible ignorance of this teaching? 
Lionel: What does he mean by this I do not know.
The dogma outside the Church there is no salvation has been defined by three Church Councils in the ExtraOrdinary Magisterium and many others in the Ordinary Magisterium. The citations are all over the Internet.
______________________

Can they escape the condemnation of Pope Boniface VIII, who in first elaborating it said, "this authority, although it is given to man and is exercised by man, is not human, but rather divine, and has been given by the divine Word to Peter himself and to his successors in him, whom the Lord acknowledged an established rock, when he said to Peter himself: Whatsoever you shall bind etc. [Matt. 16:19]. Therefore, whosoever resists this power so ordained by God, resists the order of God ...?
Lionel: I think the Cushingites are rejecting the traditional interpretation of Outside the Church There Is No Salvation by assuming there are known cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church in invincible ignorance. For them invincible ignorance is an exception to traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
____________________________

 No wonder that given enough time such groups inevitably produce those who claim that the See of Peter is vacant, since the logic of their schismatic attitude is ultimately irreconcilable with the doctrine of papal primacy, as enunciated by both Pope Boniface and Vatican I.-Colin B.Donovan, EWTN etc.

Lionel: If the See of Peter would interpret extra ecclesiam nulla salus with rational and traditional Feeneyism instead of irrational Cushingism then the sedevacantists may want to return to the old Church, with the old ecclesiology which has not changed with Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite).
-Lionel Andrades

OCTOBER 3, 2018

Apologist Colin B. Donovan, STL assumes invincible ignorance 1) refers to known people saved outside the general faith and moral teachings of the Catholic Church and that they are known exceptions to the rule.2) He further infers that invincble ignorances is the ordinary way of salvation

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/10/apologist-colin-b-donovan-stl-assumes.html

The Crossroads at 23rd Street - Apologist Colin B. Donovan, STL assumes invincible ignorance 1) refers to known people saved outside the general faith and moral teachings of the Catholic Church and that they are known exceptions to the rule.2) He further infers that invincble ignorances is the ordinary way of salvation.

On this website/blog , 'The Defenders of the (Liberal) Catholic Faith' have this report with a video titled 'What Catholics Need to Know to Avoid Heresy'.

The Crossroads at 23rd Street

The Church's moral theology has always distinguished between objective or material sin and formal sin. The person who holds something contrary to the Catholic faith is materially a heretic. They possess the matter of heresy, theological error. Thus, prior to the Second Vatican Council it was quite common to speak of non-Catholic Christians as heretics, since many of their doctrines are objectively contrary to Catholic teaching. This theological distinction remains true, though in keeping with the pastoral charity of the Council today we use the term heretic only to describe those who willingly embrace what they know to be contrary to revealed truth. Such persons are formally (in their conscience before God) guilty of heresy. Thus, the person who is objectively in heresy is not formally guilty of heresy if 1) their ignorance of the truth is due to their upbringing in a particular religious tradition (to which they may even be scrupulously faithful), and 2) they are not morally responsible for their ignorance of the truth. This is the principle of invincible ignorance, which Catholic theology has always recognized as excusing before God.(emphasis added)- Colin B. Donovan, STL
http://www.23rdstreet.com/video_texts/what_catholics_need_to_know.aspx

Colin B. Donovan, STL assumes invincible ignorance 1) refers to known people saved outside the general faith and moral teachings of the Catholic Church and that they are known exceptions to the rule.2) He further infers that invincble ignorances is the ordinary way of salvation.

On the faith issue, that is the necessity of faith and baptism for salvation ( AG 7), there are no known cases of non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance to be exceptions to the general teaching on all needing to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation.( Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441, Catechism of Pope Pius X, Vatican Council II (AG 7) etc).

Secondly, the ordinary way of salvation is faith and baptism. The ordinary way of salvation is not invincible ignorance.

So this is a flaw in his writing.He is a liberal theologian.

He does not affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus here or on EWTN. Since he accepts the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, which tells us that invisible cases of invincible ignorance are visible exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So the interpretation of the Council of Florence and the old Catechism on this issue are obsolete for him. 

Similarly Jesus' general teaching on adultery etc tell us the objective sin indicates the subjective state and the person is oriented to Hell. This is the general de fide teaching.It is supported by Pope John Paul II's encyclical on morals, Veritatis Splendor.Invincible ignorance or following one's conscience etc is not the norm.Secondly we humans cannot judge when a person in manifest mortal sin (living in concubinage known to all) is an exception to the general rule. If there are exceptions it could only be known to God.Donovan assumes that the exceptions are the rule here too.

So he really teaches heresy.Since he rejects the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS with an irrationality ( known exceptions of invincible ignorance, which also are the general rule).

He is also in schism with the past popes on outside the Church there is no salvation. He is in a rupture doctrinally and theologically with St. Augustine, St.Thomas Aquinas, St.Maximillian Kolbe...

He has re-interpreted the Nicene Creed's, 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' to 'I believe in three or more known baptisms for the forgiveness of sins, desire, blood, invincible ignorance, seeds of the Word(AG 11) etc and they ALL exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church'.

He has put aside the Athanasius Creed which states 'Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith unless every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. 

He has also contradicted the Catechism of Pope Pius X 1

He has also put aside Vatican Council II which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.

Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. -Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II.

(All must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching and also not made known by the Church's teaching. Since there are no known exceptions to invincible ignorance which are objective objections on the de fide teaching on the necessity to be a member of the Church for salvation)

-Lionel Andrades

1.

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.

Our Lady of Medjugorje Message in English, 2 of October 2018