LONE JEHOVAH WITNESS IN THE COLD : BAPTISM OF WATER AND 'SUBMISSION TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE SOVEREIGN PONTIFF IS NECESSARY FOR SALVATION'

There was a lone elderly man at the entrance of the metro station today morning at about 8 a.m. The other Jehovah Witnesses had probably deserted him. It was a cold morning and it rained yesterday, probably during the night too.

He was handing out their magazine to a few people entering the station. Today is a holiday.

On an average on Saturdays and Sundays there are about seven or eight of them eager to share their new faith, enforced at talks at different centers during the week. They believe they are among the few who will make it to Heaven. They hand out their literature to save your soul and they will refuse to accept any literature you present them.

When they speak to me I tell them that they are going to Hell. This is the official teaching of the Catholic Church.

Why cannot other Catholics say the same thing as me?

Since other Catholics believe the baptism of desire is visible and known and is an exception to the dogma outside the church there is no salvation.

Other Catholics do not know that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was a criticism of the Archbishop of Boston Richard Cushing when it mentioned an implicit baptism of desire and not an explicit-to-us one.

So other Catholics believe there can be a defacto exception to the dogma in the present times.

So for other Catholics the ordinary possible way of salvation is not Catholic Faith and the baptism of water (LG 14, AG 7) but the baptism of desire etc.

So when other Catholics meet the JW’s they believe the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are the ordinary means of salvation.

I wrote this note in the Church Chiesa del Gesu, Rome .On my left was the tomb of St. Ignatius of Loyola and on my right the altar with the relic of St. Francis Xavier. The Vice Rector here Fr. Massimo Morelli S.J (1) says the natives were saved in Goa before St. Francis Xavier arrived there. So for him and the elderly Jesuit who hears  Confession  near the altar of St.Francis Xavier the ordinary means of salvation is invincible ignorance.

If Fr.Massimo and  the other Jesuits here would meet that elderly man today morning they would welcome him into the Catholic Church if he was interested in returning but probably could assume that he was not going to Hell. Since for them the ordinary means of salvation is having a good conscience, being saved with the ‘seeds of the Word’, invincible ignorance, being in imperfect communion with the church, the baptism of desire and the mercy of merciful God.

The Sacrament of Penance is the ordinary way to receive God’s mercy for those in mortal sin. However with perfect contrition a person can also have sins forgiven in penance (Letter of the Hoy Office 1949)

Similarly the baptism of water and 'submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation'. (Letter of the Holy Office 1949).

According to the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 all the JW's are oriented to Hell since 'submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation'. 

-Lionel Andrades

1.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/10/jesuit-at-chiesa-del-gesu-rome-says.html

CHURCH TEXT IS CRITICAL OF THE ARCHBISHOP OF BOSTON : REFERS TO IMPLICIT AND NOT EXPLICIT (TO US) BAPTISM OF DESIRE

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 addressed to the Archbishop of Boston mentions the single word that is critical of Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston. The Letter refers to ‘implicit baptism of desire’. Implicit baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The Archbishop’s entire criticism of Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center was on this single point. He believed that those saved with the baptism of desire were exceptions to the dogma, they contradicted Fr.Leonard Feeney and the traditional interpretation of the dogmatic teaching. He assumed that there was not implicit but explicit-to-us baptism of desire so it contradicted the dogma. The Letter of the Holy Office does not mention a visible- to- us baptism of desire.(1)

Assuming Fr. Leonard Feeney and St. Benedict Center rejected implicit baptism of desire they are still not denying the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Since implicit baptism of desire is known only to God .It is not an issue.It is not a contradiction of the dogma outside the church there is no salvation.(2)

Fr.Leonard Feeney rejected an explicitly known baptism of desire. He opposed the Archbishop.He was disobedient to ecclesiastical authority.The Letter of the Holy Office criticizes Fr. Feeney for disobedience.(3)

Fr. Leonard Feeney said that it was a conscience issue for him and he could not obey the Archbishop or the Jesuits, who were teaching that there was salvation outside the church. In other words they were saying that there could be known cases of persons saved with explicitly known baptism of desire and so these were exceptions to the dogma on salvation.

The Letter of the Holy Office refers to implicit baptism of desire and this is a correction of  Archbishop Richard Cushing and the Jesuits in Boston.

-Lionel Andrades

1.

However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949 (Emphasis added)

2.

With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire,..-Letter of the Holy Office 1949

3.

and continue to exist as a source of discord and rebellion against ecclesiastical authority and as a source of the disturbance of many consciences.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949

CHURCH TEXT CONDEMNING FR.LEONARD FEENEY OR THE ARCHBISHOP RICHARD J.CUSHING ?

A sedevacantist website has posted the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 with the headline Church texts Condemning Fr.Feeney. He could also have said Church Text Condemning the Archbishop of Boston for heresy.

1.The Letter of the Holy Office does not approve or mention a baptism of desire which is known to us and so could be an exception to the dogma.The archbishop and the Jesuits rejected the teaching of Fr. Leonard Feeney suggesting  that there were defacto exceptions to the dogma.

2.Instead the Letter mentions implicit baptism of desire. Implicit desire is not an exception to the dogma.

3. The Letter mentions 'the dogma'. The text of 'the dogma' says every one needs to be visible member of the Church for salvation. There is no mention of explictly- known baptism of desire.

4. The Letter mentions ‘only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith ’. This does not include those with the baptism of desire for the practical reason that we do not know any case.So the baptism of desire is not an exception as the Archbishop held.

5. The Letter of the Holy Office says 'submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation’. De facto every needs to enter the Church. The baptism of desire is not a known exception. This is also a criticism of the Archbishop.

Is the Letter of the Holy Office a 'condemnation' of the Archbishop of Boston with his explicitly known baptism of desire and invincible ignorance being defacto exceptions to the dogma ? 

-Lionel Andrades

LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE

Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.

However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.

Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be incorporated by baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth.

However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.

Discussing the members of which the Mystical Body is-composed here on earth, the same august Pontiff says: "Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed."

Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after "Rome has spoken" they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church "only by an unconscious desire." Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.

In sending this letter, I declare my profound esteem, and remain,

Your Excellency's most devoted,

F. Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani.

A. Ottaviani, Assessor.

(Private); Holy Office, 8 Aug., 1949.

________________________________________

Provided Courtesy of:

Eternal Word Television Network

5817 Old Leeds Road

Irondale, AL 35210

http://www.ewtn.com/

TRANSCENDENTAL MEDITATION BEING TAUGHT AT CATHOLIC SCHOOLS AND SEMINARIES

There was a large group of mediators of the Transcendental Meditation and TM Sidhi program who met at the Maharishi University in Iowa for a few weeks of meditation. Social scientists with the TM movement reported it as a success.A  big wave for peace. It was called a Worl Peace Assembly. I recall during that period there was a gruesome murder there. I wondered if it was caused by  the group meditation there.

Transcendental Meditation is being taught at Catholic schools and seminaries and there are religious who practice it.

I was invited to a Catholic seminary to teach this technique, along with another TM teacher.A bishop tells me that the batch that learnt TM,whom we taught,  has emerged the worse of the seminarians over that period of time.

 I personally know five priests from that batch who have left the priesthood and got married. Three of them are Franciscans who have married and joined a Protestant community in England. The other two were diocesan priests.

I assisted TM teachers in teaching the technique at a Catholic school in Bangkok. The principal was a Catholic religious sister and she told me that she was open to these meditation techniques.I was a liberal too at that time and was happy to meet her.

Much of the scientific research on TM, which impressed religious I knew, comes from scientists actively working for the TM movement. If there are some negative results Maharishi would expect them to gloss over it.

Maharishi tried to introduce TM in a big way in the Philippines. He had the approval of the political leaders in that Catholic country. There  were a group of students however who opposed the teaching of TM in Catholic schools there. Maharishi chose not to enter into a controversy and the TM teachers left. Hundreds of Catholic seminarians had completed the TM teachers course. They all left and none became teachers.

In the article I read last week in Il Settimanale di Padre Pio on Freemasonry,written by Fr.Siano F.I  the word hirim is associated with Satan. Interestingly Fr.Siano mentions  Buddhism and the Left Handed Path. Hindu gurus themselves ask mediators to avoid the dangers of meditation and the left handed path. This is associated with Tantra Yoga or Kundalini Yoga. The meditation techniques of Rajneesh, which uses a meditation linked to ones sexuality is one of these techniques. The connection between sexuality and the mind in meditation is also noticed in  the TM-Sidhi program, the advanced technique.It includes 'hopping', a form of bouncing from the waist while sitting in the half lotus position. It has a physical component and is not to be confused with levitation.

The advanced meditation is not taught to those who are unstable or have an addiction to liquor,drugs etc.

The long hours of meditation with a free flowing mantra without the support of Jesus and the Church and without any guru, as is the case of some many people in the West, gives Satan an opportunity to influence the meditator.

So one can degenerate with meditation and assume that it is just stress release or the nice feelings are higher states of consciousness or the absence of any thoughts for a few seconds is the experience of Absolute Being.However it could be the present of an evil spirit in ones person.These are all false paths. They cannot give you the experience of God as known to Christians.

They may provide relaxation  but one cannot experience the states of ecstasy known to the saints Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross. There cannot be the experience of God Consciousness without Jesus in the Catholic Church.Outside  the Church there is no salvation.

St. Francis of Assisi had the highest levels of mystical experience and also the stigmata.It was through suffering and the grace of God within the Catholic Church.It was through the Cross and not comfortable living with promises of quick experiences of bliss.

The scientific research on TM does not mention that long periods of meditation cause bodily changes and make one addicted to these techniques for the rest of ones life. The TM movement projects the meditation technique positively and never mentions the negative effects to  body ,mind and soul.Neither in public is the influence of the occult recognized.

-Lionel Andrades

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

MAHARISHI MAHESH YOGIS TRANSCENDENTAL MEDITATION USES A MANTRA LINKED TO LUCIFER
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/12/maharishi-mahesh-yogis-transcendental.html

Photo of the puja taught at Catholic schools and seminaries

http://tmfree.blogspot.com/2009/04/still-not-religion-video-of-puja.html

MAHARISHI MAHESH YOGIS TRANSCENDENTAL MEDITATION USES A MANTRA LINKED TO LUCIFER

Hirim is a word known to Freemasonary and is associated with Satan according to Fr. Siano F.I in the recent issue of the weekly Il Settimanale di Padre Pio. Hirim is mentioned in the official list of mantras of Transcendental Meditation.

I was reading an article on Freemasonary in the magazine Il Settimanale di Padre Pio. It  mentions a name for Lucifer. This article is one of a series on the same subject. The word 'hiram' is connected with Satan. The word seemed familiar to me.I was wondering if it was the same word used as a mantra in Maharishi Mahesh Yogis Transcendental Meditation.

I was a teacher of Transcendental Meditation(TM) and completed a five months course for teachers at Pattaya, Thailand. We had to sign a document saying that we would keep the mantras secret . The mantras are given out according to a persons age. When someone would come to learn TM they would have to fill a form with personal details. They would be asked their age.Then according to their age I would  give them the mantra during the ritual of initiation the puja.

Many of the TMers I knew were Freemasons and members of the Theopsophical Society, which projects itself as a liberal,open minded, tolerant organisation but it is evil and their members hate the Catholic Church.

Last night I checked the list of mantras of Transcendental Meditation at an internet shop. The mantras are no longer a secret. I found the list of TM mantras. It is the same list which I used as a TM teacher

One of the mantras given out is hirim.

Fr. Siano F.I an Italian priest with the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate(F.I)  has done studies on Freemasonary and he shows in well referenced articles their link with Satan. Last Sunday at the Church Santa Maria di Annunziata in Rome I browsed through the recent issue of Il Settimanale di Padre Pio which I read regularly. Again Fr. Siano mentions the word hiram and Lucifer in the headlines of the article.

I recall on my teachers training course the German instructor saying that the mantras are meaningless words but they have a value at another level of consciousness.

I recall seeing a video on the course in which Maharishi is asked his opinion about a person’s strange actions. He is told that perhaps the spirit who is in that meditator prefers to act likewise.

In another video Maharishi also praised a meditator who had experiences which definitiely were related to a Hindu deity and the realm linked to the deity.It was not Christian.

On the teachers training program I was not allowed to go for Mass on Sunday.Privately I would often   pray my rosary.

I am aware that TM has opened my unconscious to realms in which I have to protect myself daily with praying the rosary, going for daily Mass and not sinning.

Here is the list of the mantras with the word hirim.

Official Mantra List in the Practice of Transcendental Meditation:

eng

em

shirim

hirim

shiam

shiama

shrim

ram

ayima

The mantra I used was shirim.

When I was learning the advanced TM technique the TM-Sidhi program and I had not started ‘hopping’ I informed my teacher naively that I was praying for success. This made him extremely angry. He thought I would never ever learn the advanced meditation technique.

This was all a long time back before I went to Medugorje in the mid 90’s. The other TM teacher once realized that I was being lost to the TM Movement, even though at that time I did not know it, she said that I should beware that a lot of people are praying for me and they want me to leave TM. I thought it was odd that she would make that remark.Since it was so uncharachteristic of her. I was wondering what was the source of her knowledge which made her make that remark.

Many years later when I was talking to my bishop he mentioned casually at dinner that it is only after we die that we will realize who had been praying and making sacrifices for us. I laughed I knew he was hinting at me.

Our Lady was with me constantly. She did not leave me.

Lionel Andrades

Catholic layman

Former Teacher of Maharishi Mahesh Yogis Transcendental Meditation

VICARIATE OFFICES FOR YOUTH AND THE SICK ARE TEACHING ERRORS

The Vicariate Rome Pastoral Service offices for Youth and the Sick are teaching errors since they seem unaware that those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus nor to Vatican Council II (LG 14,AG 7).

Youth at the Gesu al Centro program are taught to only proclaim Jesus who is love. They seem like Protestant members or ex Catholics with the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who also believe in Jesus and that Jesus is Love.

(http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/12/video-youtube-gesu-al-centro-ponte.html)

Similarly the Pastoral Office for the Sick has published a booklet which does not say that everyone needs to defacto enter the Catholic Church with the baptism of water for salvation. It also does not mention Hell.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/12/rome-vicariate-hit-by-richard-cushing.html

The Vicariate will not permit Catholic priests in their homilies in Rome to mention Hell. Neither are they allowed to teach that everyone needs to enter the Catholic Church with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation (to avoid Hell).(LG 14,AG 7).

Those young people who have a vocation to the religious life have to assume that persons saved with the baptism of desire are visible to us. They have to proclaim at some time that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Since it is an exception it has to be explicitly known to us in the present times.

Candidates with a religious vocation in Rome and the rest of Italy have to  imply that those saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance can be telephoned or met on the street. This has to be believed even though Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents do not state that we know these cases.

The Letter of the Holy Office only mentions the baptism of desire as did the Council of Trent. It does not say that the baptism of desire is explicitly known to us. It did not say that it was an exception to the dogma. Neither does the Council of Trent make this claim.

The Vicar General is Cardinal Agostino Vallini.
(Segreteria.CardinalVallini@VicariatusUrbis.org)

-Lionel Andrades

ROME VICARIATE HIT BY THE RICHARD CUSHING ERROR : Centro Della pastorale sanitaria says the baptism of water is not defacto needed for the salvation of all on earth

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/12/rome-vicariate-hit-by-richard-cushing.html


HOSPITAL CHAPLAINS IN ROME SAY WE DO NOT KNOW ANY CASE OF A PERSON SAVED WITH THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/12/hospital-chaplains-in-rome-say-we-do.html


YOUTUBE VIDEO QUESTIONS TO ASK THE CATHOLIC CHAPLAIN OR PROFESSOR
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/12/youtube-video-questions-to-ask-catholic.html

YOUTUBE VIDEO QUESTIONS TO ASK THE CATHOLIC CHAPLAIN OR PROFESSOR

VIDEO YOUTUBE GESU AL CENTRO PONTE MILVIO 2011

PROFESSION OF FAITH: I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH

Today morning at the Christmas Mass at 11.30 a.m at the Church Santa Maria dei Miracoli, Piazza del Popolo, Rome the priest Don Errico agreed that I could say that every one with no exception needs Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation.

After Mass I spoke to him and said that we made the Profession of Faith during Holy Mass which was in Italian. I told him my understanding of ‘Church’.

I said that every one needs to enter the Church as taught by the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and since we do not know any case of invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire , there are no known exceptions.He agreed with my profession of faith.

I told him that I am glad we agree on the profession of faith on Christmas Day.

Fr.Errico belongs to the religious community Betharram  Societas Sacratissimi Cordi Jesu.

IF YOU SAY THAT THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS NOT VISIBLE THEN THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE DOES NOT CONDEMN FR.LEONARD FEENEY

Reports on the internet say Fr.Leonard Feeney was condemned by the Holy Office for denying the possibility of some non Catholics being saved with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance and for teaching that every one needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church for salvation.These critics assume that implicit baptism of desire is visible and so an exception to the dogma.

Implicit baptism of desire does not contradict the dogma so how could it be an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

The excommunication was lifted without him having to recant or make any changes in the book The Bread  of Life.

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 does not state that Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for saying implicit baptism of desire does not exist.Neither does the Letter mention that implicit baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma.

Fr.Leonard Feeney accepted the baptism of desire per se, in theory and that it would be followed with the baptism of water. He would deny that the baptism of desire was the ordinary means of salvation or that it was a substitute for the baptism of water or that it contradicted the dogma.

In The Bread of Life he recognizes the possibility of a catechumen who dies before visibly receiving the baptism of water as having a genuine desire and charity. He believed in these exceptional cases, known only to God, God would provide the grace for this person to receive the baptism of water. These cases would be unknown to us and only explicit for God. He does not deny in theory the baptism of desire as it is alleged in the media.

So the Letter of the Holy Office did not ‘condemn’ him as it is being continously reported for many years.Those who make this claim imply that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 contradicted the dogma and its centuries old interpretation.There can only be implicit baptism of desire and it is never explicitly known.

Neither was the Archbishop of Boston ‘condemned’ when he assumed that the baptism of desire was explicitly known and so contradicted Fr.Leonard Feeney, St.Benedict Center and the dogma which was an authoritative teaching for centuries.

Fr.Leonard Feeney however was condemned by the Archbishop of Boston. Fr.Feeney called the Archbishop of Boston a ‘heretic’.Since to deny a dogma in public with alleged explicilty known baptism of desire could warrant automatic excommunication.A religious who knowingly makes this claim in public is automatically excommunicated. This is heresy and to knowingly offer Mass or receive the Eucharist in this condition is another mortal sin.

Apologists Msgr.Joseph Fenton and Fr.William Most could have unknowingly believed that implicit baptism of desire contradicted the dogma. Others , to compensate for this irrational error say that the baptism of desire etc are part of the dogma. Others just say its ‘ a development of doctrine’.All imply that the baptism of desire is visible and known to us in particular cases.

The Society of St.Pius X website says Fr.Leonard Feeney was ‘condemned’ by the Holy Office and they support their view with theology not knowing that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are not exceptions to the dogma. The SSPX has been informed. Without a public correction of the error this is an impediment to the Traditional Latin Mass. The SSPX, FSSP and many others are in agreement with the liberal EWTN who make the same charge against the innocent priest.

Some priests in Rome, non SSPX, who offer the Novus Ordo Mass in Italian, affirm in public the dogma Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441 and accept implicit baptism of desire as taught by the Council of Trent.-Lionel Andrades

DID THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949 CONTRADICT THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS? NO
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/12/did-letter-of-holy-office-1949.html#links

DID THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949 CONTRADICT THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS? NO

The Letter of the Holy Office only mentions the baptism of desire as did the Council of Trent. It does not say that the baptism of desire is explicitly known to us. It did not say that it was an exception to the dogma. Neither does the Council of Trent make this claim.

The Letter of the Holy Office supported Fr. Leonard Feeney by referring to ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible teaching’. The dogma Cantate Domino, Council of Florence indicates all non Catholics in Boston and the rest of the world are oriented to Hell unless they convert into the Catholic Church.

There are three defined dogmas on extra ecclesiam nulla salus. All three agree with Fr. Leonard Feeney. The three dogmas http://catholicism.org/category/outside-the-church-there-is-no-salvation  on extra ecclesiam nulla salus state as does Fr. Leonard Feeney that every one needs to be a visible member of the Church for salvation i.e. every one needs Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.

They do not mention any exceptions as the baptism of desire etc since it is known that they are always implicit and not exceptions to the dogma. This was also Fr. Leonard Feeney's teaching.

The Letter of the Holy Office does not specifically say that he was excommunicated for heresy it mentions disobedience. One has to assume that he was excommunicated for heresy.

St. Pius XII uses the standard defacto-dejure analysis in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. The secular media interprets the Letter with the defacto-defacto model. It seems irrational. It does not make sense.

For example:

De facto-dejure model

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 refers to the dogma and so says that everyone de facto needs to enter the Church for salvation and there are no defacto exceptions.It also says de jure, in principle and known only to God, a non Catholic can be saved with the baptism of desire ‘in certain circumstances’ (Letter of the Holy Office 1949).

Defacto-defacto model

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 according to the secular media says every one de facto needs to enter the Church for salvation and there are de facto exceptions.

For the media and the liberals there are those who can be saved defacto with the baptism of desire which is defacto known to us.If the defacto-dejure analysis is not used some Magisterial texts would appear odd.

The defacto-dejure analysis is not a new theology. It’s a philosophical way of looking at things. The defacto- dejure analysis is used in theology. It’s a rational way of analysis. It clarifies for instance what is known, with what can be potentially known. It clarifies what is known in actuality (defacto) with what is known as a possibility (dejure).

Whether we are aware of it or not, we could be using either the defacto-dejure analysis or the irrational defacto-defacto model.

The defacto-dejure analysis was used in Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church etc. It does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction.

If the baptism of desire was not dejure, accepted only in principle, and if instead it was de facto and known to us, in personal cases, then the Letter of the Holy Office would contradict itself. t would mean Pope Pius XII says every one de facto needs to enter the Church (as mentioned in 'the dogma' ) but some people can also be defacto saved with the baptism of desire etc 'in certain circumstances'(Letter of the Holy Office).

De facto every non Catholic needs to enter the Church for salvation and there are no exceptions. ( LG 14, AG 7, Cantate Domino, Dominus Iesus 20, CCC 845, 846 etc).

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 mentions those who can be saved ‘in certain circumstances’ with the baptism of desire. It does not say that this contradicts ‘the dogma’ or ‘the infallible teaching’ to which the Letter also refers. It does not say that popes and Church Fathers as referring to those saved in general with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance.

Since invincible ignorance is implicit, we accept it only in principle (de jure). It is not an exception to the dogma. It is a possibility known to God but not an exception to the dogma.

It is not contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction when it is assumed that everyone de facto needs the baptism of water for salvation and some people in the present times in principle, de jure , can be saved without the baptism of water.

It is not a contradiction to say that everyone needs the baptism of water for salvation, this is an actuality, and to also say that some non Catholics’ in certain circumstances’ (Letter of the Holy Office 1949) can be saved without the baptism of water and it would be known only to God, this is a possibility.

Since one is an actuality and the other a possibility it does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction.

The Holy Office Letter of 1949 acknowledges there was a ‘controversy’. The controversy included the Archbishop and Jesuits of Boston.

Since the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 mentions ‘the dogma’ the Letter is a criticism of the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits at Boston College. So in this sense the Letter of the Holy Office was critical of the Archbishop of Boston. Since there were no known cases of the baptism of desire etc you cannot accommodate the Cushing Error and assume that the baptism of desire is a part of the dogma. An objective reading of the text of the dogma shows that there is no mention of any exceptions.

There are some parts of the Letter critical of Fr.Leonard Feeney who was excommunicated for disobedience. He did not go to Rome when called.There were issues which were not clarified.

"From what has been said it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical From the Housetops, fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without."

The article it refers to was written by Raymond Karam and not Fr.Leonard Feeney. Karam defended the dogma without using the defacto-dejure clarification. Neither did the Holy Office and the Archbishop mention this reasoning which avoids contradicting the Principle of Non Contradiction. So it is possible that all the persons in the controversy were talking across to each other. There was confusion.

"From these declarations which pertain to doctrine it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a “Defender of the Faith,” and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities..."

Here they could have assumed at that time that a cardinal could not teach error and heresy .So they believed the cardinal against the priest, who was also expelled from his religious community.

We now know that ‘the lawful authorities’ in Boston, were saying that there was a defacto known baptism of desire etc, and this contradicted the interpretation of the dogma by Fr. Leonard Feeney and St. Benedict Center. The Richard Cushing Error of the explicilty known baptism of desire etc is irrational and not a doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Later the Holy Office would approve the lifting of the excommunication without Fr. Leonard Feeney having to recant or make any changes in his writings.

The Letter mentions the dogma and this is a criticism of the Archbishop. Since the dogma does not mention any exceptions as did the Archbishop.

The Letter mentions those who can be saved with a genuine desire. The Letter does not claim that these cases are defacto known to us and so contradict the dogma. This is a criticism of the Archbishop.

So the Letter of the Holy Office supports Fr.Leonard Feeney on doctrine and is in accord with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

-Lionel Andrades

____________________________________________

SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2009

CDF(Holy Office) supports Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston in Letter

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2009/09/cdfholy-office-supports-fr-leonard.html

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 25, 2009

POPE PIUS XII STATED ALL JEWS IN BOSTON NEED TO ENTER THE CATHOLIC CHURCH FOR SALVATION

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2009/12/pope-pius-xii-stated-all-jews-in-boston.html

POPE PIUS XII SAID EVERY JEW, ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN AND MUSLIM NEEDS TO CONVERT TO AVOID HELL

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2010/01/pope-pius-xii-said-every-jew-orthodox.html

SUNDAY, JUNE 20, 2010

CUSHING DOCTRINE SAYS LETTER OF HOLY OFFICE (1949) VIOLATES PRINCIPLE OF NON CONTRADICTION

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2010/06/cushing-doctrine-says-letter-of-holy.html

WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 2011

THE HOLY FATHER POPE BENEDICT XVI IS A CUSHINGITE

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/05/holy-father-pope-benedict-xvi-is.html

MONDAY, AUGUST 1, 2011

Quanto Conficiamus of Pope Pius IX does not say that we know the baptism of desire explicitly

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/08/quanto-conficiamus-of-pope-pius-ix-does.html

THURSDAY, JULY 28, 2011

VENERABLE POPE PIUS XII SAID ALL NON CATHOLICS NEED TO ENTER THE CHURCH WITH NO EXCEPTION TO AVOID HELL

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/07/venerable-pope-pius-xii-said-all-non.html

Questions to ask the hospital Chaplain, University Chaplain or professor,Parish Priest or Rector of a Church

Ask your local chancellor or bishop.

1.The baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma outside the church there is no salvation ? ( If this question is answered yes then it is the Richard Cushing Error)

2. So it means that the baptism of desire etc are known to us explicitly for it to be an exception ? ( They could answer no. We personally don’t know any case.)

3.We accept implicit baptism of desire (Council of Trent) and being saved in invincible ignorance (Lumen Gentium 16) however they are not exceptions to the dogma?( Yes. We accept them in principle but do not presume that they are exceptions to the dogma.)

4. There is also no magisterial text which does imply that they are exceptions? (No. None).

5. They  are not defacto exceptions to the dogma, they do not contradict the dogma outside the church there is no salvation which says defacto, explicitly every one needs to enter the Catholic Church for salvation ? (Yes. They are implicit and the dogma refers to explicit baptism of water given to adults who know the Catholic Faith so there is no contradiction.)

6.Fr.Leonard Feeney, the popes and saints were correct in saying everyone needs to be a visible member of the Church for salvation ? Yes.

7. Every adult on earth de facto needs the baptism of water and Catholic Faith for salvation and there are no known exceptions ? (Yes.)

-Lionel Andrades

HOSPITAL CHAPLAINS IN ROME SAY WE DO NOT KNOW ANY CASE OF A PERSON SAVED WITH THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/12/hospital-chaplains-in-rome-say-we-do.html

HOSPITAL CHAPLAINS IN ROME SAY WE DO NOT KNOW ANY CASE OF A PERSON SAVED WITH THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE

Vicariate’s Pastoral Care for the sick website indicates all people on earth defacto do not need the baptism of water for salvation accomodating the Richard Cushing Error.

Two hospital chaplains of Catholic hospitals in Rome agree that we do not know any defacto case of a non Catholic saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance.

Don. Ivan says  we do not know a single such case in Rome. Also Fr.Tiziano also says there are defacto no such known cases.

Fr. Tiziano also accepts that  we do not know any case of a non Catholic saved in ‘imperfect communion’ with the Catholic Church or with ‘the seeds of the Word’ (Vatican Council II).

It may be mentioned that the Rome Vicariate's centre for the pastoral care of the sick has issued a booklet in which the Catholic teaching on the necessity of baptism suffers from the Richard Cushing Error. It is the error of assuming that those saved with the baptism of desire etc are explicitly known to us and so are a defacto  exception to the dogma outside the church there is no salvation.

To accommodate the Cushing Error, on page 8 of  ‘I sacramenti dell’ iniziazione cristiana’ , the booklet does not state that baptism is defacto needed for all. Instead it says it is only necessary for those who have had the Gospel preached to them and who have the means to ask for the Sacrament of baptism. (1) This is true only in principle, de jure. De facto we do not known any exceptions to the baptism of water. So every one on earth needs the baptism of water given to adults with Catholic Faith, to go to Heaven.

The booklet issued by the Centro Della pastorale sanitaria Della Diocesi di Roma says that a person can be saved without the baptism of water through the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood (martyrdom).(2). It does not clarify that these are possibilities, 'in certain circumstances' (Letter of the Holy Office 1949) and these cases are defacto not known to us. They are explicit only for God. The ordinary means of salvation is Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.(LG 14,AG 7). In general, the ordinary means of salvation is not the baptism of water and being saved in invincible ignorance.

 Pope Pius XII mentioned the dogma the infallible teaching (Letter of the Holy Office 1949). The dogma for centuries has been interpreted as saying all need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation. The dogma does not mention any exceptions. The issue of baptism of desire and invincible ignorance emerged in only the 1940’s. It was the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits there who taught that those saved with the baptism of desire etc are exceptions to the dogma outside the church there is no salvation.

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was a criticism of the Archbishop since it mentioned the dogma which did not have any exceptions and since it mentioned the baptism of desire without claiming it was explicitly known to us.

The Rome Vicariate in saying that the baptism of desire etc are defacto exceptions is implying that there are defacto exceptions to a defined dogma and that it is also a contradiction of Vatican Council II (LG 14, AG 7).

There is no magisterial text which says that these cases are visible and known to us and that they are defacto exceptions.

The Vicariate has mixed up the de facto-dejure reasoning which is there within magisterial texts including the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Vatican Council II, the Letter of the Holy Office, Mystici Corporis of Pope Pius XII etc.

These Church documents do not assume that the baptism of desire etc are defacto but de jure, accepted in principle and known to God only. If these documents assumed that the baptism of desire was defacto known to us it would violate the philosophical Principle of Non Contradiction.

The booklet ‘I sacramenti dell’ iniziazione cristiana’ has good sound Catholic teaching except there is an error on the subject of the baptism of water being needed for all people in the present times for salvation.

A copy of the text in the booklet is also available on the website of the Vicariato, Rome.
http://www.vicariatusurbis.org/Sanita/DOCUMENTI/SUSSIDI/I%20sacramenti%20dell'iniziazione%20cristiana.pdf


-Lionel Andrades

ROME VICARIATE HIT BY THE RICHARD CUSHING ERROR : Centro Della pastorale sanitaria says the baptism of water is not defacto needed for the salvation of all on earth

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/12/rome-vicariate-hit-by-richard-cushing.html

 

CATHOLIC ANSWERS SUCCUMBS TO THE RICHARD CUSHING ERROR

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/12/catholic-answers-succumbs-to-richard.html

MSGR.JOSEPH FENTON AND FR. WILLIAM MOST DID NOT NOTICE THE RICHARD CUSHING ERROR

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/12/msgrjoseph-fenton-and-fr-william-most.html

 

USCCB REPORT MAKES ALLOWANCE FOR THE RICHARD CUSHING ERROR

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/12/usccb-report-makes-allowance-for.html

CATHOLIC WRITERS STILL USE THE ARCHBISHOP RICHARD CUSHING ERROR

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/12/catholic-writers-are-still-using.html

CATHOLICS UNITED FOR THE FAITH IMPLIES THOSE SAVED WITH THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE ARE VISIBLE,FR.LEONARD FEENEY WAS EXCOMMUNICATED FOR AFFIRMING THE SAME TEACHING AS SAINTS AND POPES

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/search/label/Catholics%20United%20for%20the%20Faith

USCCB NOTIFICATION ON FR.PETER PHAN CONTAINS HERESY AND ECCLESIA DEI, CUF, CATHOLIC ANSWERS AND OTHERS ACCEPT IT

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/search/label/Catholics%20United%20for%20the%20Faith

CARDINAL RATZINGER DID NOT VIOLATE THE PRINCIPLE OF NON CONTRADICTION AS CATHOLICS UNITED FOR THE FAITH IMPLY

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/search/label/Catholics%20United%20for%20the%20Faith

FR.TULLIO ROTONDO AFFIRMS CANTATE DOMINO, COUNCIL OF FLORENCE ON EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/08/frtullio-rotondo-affirms-cantate-domino.html#links

See the difference!

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/08/see-difference.html#links

VATICAN COUNCIL II SAYS OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/07/vatican-council-ii-says-outside.html#links

ROME VICARIATE HIT BY THE RICHARD CUSHING ERROR : Centro Della pastorale sanitaria says the baptism of water is not defacto needed for the salvation of all on earth

The Rome Vicariate centre for the pastoral care of the sick has issued a booklet in which the Catholic teaching on the necessity of baptism  suffers from the Richard Cushing Error. It is the error of assuming that those saved with the baptism of desire etc are explicitly known to us and so are an exception to the dogma outside the church there is no salvation.

To accommodate the Cushing Error, on page 8 of the booklet ‘I sacramenti dell’ iniziazione cristiana’ does not say that baptism is needed for all. Instead it says it is necessary for those who have had the Gospel preached to them and who have the means to ask for the Sacrament of baptism. (1)

The booklet issued by the Centro Della pastorale sanitaria Della Diocesi di Roma says that a person can be saved without the baptism of water through the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood (martyrdom).(2) A copy of the text in the booklet is also available on the website of the Vicariato, Rome. The Centre is under  Auxiliary Bishop Armando Brambilla, Titular Bishop of Giomnio (tel. ab. 06-69.88.65.13 tel. uff. 06-69.88.62.27 )

CentroPastoraleSanitaria@VicariatusUrbis.org

The bishops teaching is contrary to the dogma Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441, which says one needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church to avoid Hell. It also contradicts Vatican Council II which says Catholic Faith with the baptism of water is needed for all with no exceptions. All people need to enter the Church (AG 7, LG 14) all need to enter as ‘through a door’ (CCC 846)

The Vicariate instead indicates that all people on earth defacto do not need to enter the Church but only those who have had the Gospel preached to them and who have the means to ask for the Sacrament. The Vicariate assumes that there could be de facto known cases on earth, of non Catholics, saved in invincible ignorance. So it says only those who have had the Gospel preached to them. The Vicariate assumes that the baptism of desire is visible and known to us in particular cases, so it says only those who have the means as opposed to those who are saved by precept (desire).

It was the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing who postulated that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance were defacto exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the traditional interpretation of Fr. Leonard Feeney. This priest like the popes and saints and the dogma itself, taught that every one needs to be a visible member of the church for salvation (to avoid Hell). The dogma does not mention any exceptions and Fr.Leonard Feeney accepted the baptism of desire per se but did not think it could be an exception to the dogma. Neither did he think it was an exception to the baptism of water and taught that those who had a genuine desire, and perfect charity would receive the baptism of water with God's grace.These cases would be known only to God.

Due to the Richard Cushing error of assuming that those saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance are explicitly known to us the Vicariate in Rome (n.261) also assumes that they are de facto exceptions to the dogma. So it says only those who have had the Gospel preached to them (they know and are not in invincible ignorance) and those who have the means to ask which includes every body except for those saved with the baptism of desire (precept).

Then it asks the rhetorical question, Can one be saved without the baptism (of water)? (n.262)

The Centre  replies because Christ has died for all, salvation is open to all, even for those who have died without the baptism of water but with the baptism of blood and desire.  We know that de facto there is only one baptism and not three. The baptism of blood and desire are known explicitly only to God, only he can judge. We can administer the baptism of water only.

Dominus Iesus 20 says even though Jesus has died for all, all people need to enter the Church for salvation. The Vicariate instead says all do not need to enter the Church through the baptism of water given to adults with the Catholic Faith. It mixes up the defacto-dejure reasoning which is there in magisterial texts.It assumes wrongly that those saved with the baptism of desire and blood are de facto known to us.

De facto every one needs to enter the Church for salvation. Dejure there could be non Catholics saved with the baptism of desire etc and they would be known only to God. Since they are hypothetical cases, explicit for God only and we do not know a single case in the present time, it does not contradict the ancient teaching that every one with no exception on earth, defacto needs the baptism of water and Catholic Faith for salvation.

-Lionel Andrades

__________________________________________

(1)

261. E necessario il Battesimo per la salvezza?

II Battesimo è necessario alla salvezza per coloro ai quali è stato annunziato il Vangelo e che hanno la

possibilità di chiedere questo Sacramento.

(2)

262. Si può essere salvati senza Battesimo?

Poiché Cristo è morto per la salvezza di tutti, possono essere salvati anche senza Battesimo quanti

muoiono a causa della fede (Battesimo di sangue), i catecumeni, e anche tutti coloro che sotto l’impulso

della grazia, senza conoscere Cristo e la Chiesa, cercano sinceramente Dio e si sforzano di compiere la

sua volontà (Battesimo di desiderio). Quanto ai bambini morti senza Battesimo, la Chiesa nella sua liturgia

li affida alla misericordia di Dio.