Priestly Fraternity of St.Peter (FSSP) offers Traditional Latin Mass in Canada with false theology: heresy ?

Bishop Frederick Henry will not affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus nor interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church as being in accord with the dogma.When this is brought to his attention he says this is a lie and that he accepts the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II 'in its totality'.When asked again if this means he affirms the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus he does not answer.

On Jan 23,2013 he listed the passages from the Catechism of the Catholic Church which he believed contradicted the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and e-mailed it to me. On Jan 24,2013 I told him that we do not know any one saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire etc so those passages from the Catechism do not contradict the dogma on salvation. He still would not affirm the dogma.

I continued sending him posts from my blog.

On Jan 25 he wrote :

It would seem that you have forgotten that lying, detraction, and calumny are sinful. Pity!

That same day I emailed him mentioning:

For the record you have not denied:

1.That you reject the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with known exceptions of invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.

2. That you consider Vatican Council II a break with the past because of known exceptions.

3.You hold the same error as the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Cushing.

4.You interpret the Catechism of the Catholic Church assuming the dead who are saved, are visible.

On Jan 25 he responded:

I accept the Catechism and Vatican II in their totality – do YOU?

On Jan 26 I responded.

It is meaningless for you to say that you accept the Catechism of the Catholic Church when you assume that the references to invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire cases are visible to us in 2013.So you assume that the Catechism refers to explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

The Catechism does not state that these cases are explicit and known to us and neither does it state that these cases are an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is an irrational premise of yours. You are assuming that the dead saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma.

So you are still denying an ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and you cannot pretend that there are texts in the Catechism which contradict a teaching which is obligatory for all bishops to affirm.

Also since you use the irrational premise of the dead man walking ,saved in invincible ignorance etc and who is visible to you only, for you ,Vatican Council II also must be a break with the dogma on salvation and the past Magisterial texts.

So in your Profession of Faith ,when you say 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin' (Nicene Creed) you mean there are three known baptisms,water, desire and blood- and not just one known baptism, that of water.

The Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Gerhard Muller, recently said that it was heretical when progressives interpret Vatican Council II as a break with the past.

I repeat it is also a heresy to deny the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

On Jan 26 I sent him this blog post.

Saturday, January 26, 2013

BISHOP HENRY UNABLE TO RESPOND TO HERESY CHARGES

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/01/bishop-henry-unable-to-respond-to.html#links

He responded with one word:

Nonsense!

On Jan 26 I asked:

Are you saying that you affirm the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?

Are you saying that you interpret invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire mentioned in the Catechism as contradicting the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus?

Are you saying that just like Archbishop Richard Cushing you assume that those saved in invincible ignorance etc are known to us, they are visible to us, to be exceptions?

Does invincible ignorance and a good conscience (LG 16), elements of sanctification (LG 8) etc in Vatican Council II also contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?

He has not responded to further messages and blog posts sent to him.

Bishop Frederick Henry will not affirm the dogma while he uses the false premise of being able to see the dead on earth saved.These invisible cases are supposed to be exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.This was the error of the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case.

The bishop of Calgary  announced recently that the Traditional Latin Mass is available in the diocese at St.Anthony's Parish,Calgary.The priests there are from the Priestly Fraternity of St.Peter(FSSP).

1. Are these FSSP priests also using the false theology of Bishop Frederick Henry contradicting the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus?

2.Do they also reject the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and also the dogma on the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra?

3.Is it not a public sin to offer Holy Mass after these public denials (of at least the bishop)?

4.Is all this permitted by Canon Law?

-Lionel Andrades

St. Anthony’s Parish

5340 - 4th Street SW
Calgary, Alberta
T2V 0Z5
Tel: (403) 252-1137

FSSP Calgary House:(403) 255-2727

For Vocations Information:
Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary
Rector: Very Rev. Josef Bisig, FSSP
e-mail: seminary@fsspolgs.org
Tel.: 402-797-7700 / 7705 - Fax

In Canada, contact:
Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (Canada) Inc.
Vanier, ON K1L 8E3
e-mail: fsspcanada@cyberus.ca
Tel.: 613-567-0287 / 565-9514 Fax

http://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t1018-priestly-fraternity-of-stpeter-fssp-offers-traditional-latin-mass-in-canada-with-false-theology-heresy#8811

Vatican Council II agrees with the SSPX's St.Dennis Catholic Church, Calgary on 'other religions' :it contradicts Bishop Frederick Henry

There is a lot of importance given to Vatican Council II on the website of the Catholic Diocese of Calgary.The bishop of Calgary, Bishop Frederick Henry assumes that invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So Vatican Council II would be a break with the past since they use this false premise.

The false premise of being able to see the dead was used by the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case in the 1940's. It is repeated in the diocese of Calgary and perhaps also the SSPX church St.Dennis Catholic Church,Calgary.

There are no exceptions of implicit desire and invincible ignorance since we do not know of any such case in the Year of Faith.Vatican Council II states all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation (Ad Gentes 7).(1) This is in agreement with ‘the dogma’ the ‘infallible teaching’ which Pope Pius XII mentioned when referring to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.(2)

The dogma is based on John 3:5 (on the necessity of the baptism of water for salvation) and Mark 16:16 (on the necessity of the church). Mark 9:38-40 ( those who are not visible members of the Church and not against us) does not contradict Mark 16:16 (those who do not believe will be condemned). Thos who are not against us and who are saved are known only to Jesus. So they do not contradict the dogma. While everyone on earth needs the baptism of water and Catholic Faith and those who do not believe after being informed will be condemned.(LG 14).

The Bible, the Letter of the Holy Office nor Vatican Council II (LG 16) contradict the dogma on exclusive salvation.Since we do not know any one in 2013 who is an exception. If something does not exist in real life it cannot be an exception.We cannot name anyone today saved with implicit desire, invincible ignorance or a good conscience.There may not even be a single case over the last 100 years.We don't know.

There are no known exceptions of implicit desire, invincible ignorance(LG 16) , seeds of the Word (AG), elements of sanctification(LG 8), imperfect communion with the church(UR) or 'good and holy' non Catholics saved (NA)-   who are known to us personally.They are known only to God.So they are irrelevant to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Vatican Council II (AG 7) also says outside the church there is no salvation. It says all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation (AG 7). ALL.Protestants have the baptism of water but do not have Catholic Faith.According to Vatican Council II (AG 7) Protestants in the Diocese of Calgary are oriented to Hell unless they convert into the Catholic Church. They do not have access to the Sacrament of Confession and cannot receive the Eucharist.They know about the Church and yet do not enter.According to Lumen Gentium 14 they are on the way to Hell unless they convert before death.

Ad Gentes 7 indicates all Protestants need Catholic Faith for salvation. AG 7 is not contradicted by Lumen Gentium 16 (3) since we do not know any one saved in invincible ignorance and with a good conscience(LG 16).Neither does the Council claim that these cases are known in the present times.We accept them as possibilities. De facto (explicitly) we can never know the dead saved who are now visible to us  as they are in Heaven.

Lumen Gentium 16 is not an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus defined by three Church Councils.So the liberal interpretation of Vatican Council II in the Diocese of Calgary with the false premise - is false.

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston supported Fr.Leonard Feeney when it mentiond ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible teaching’. It does not mention any ‘exceptions’.Th priest said that there were no exceptions. There were no explicit or implicit exceptions.

If the Letter of the Holy Office  assumed that implicit baptism of desire  and being saved in invincible ignorance etc were explicit exceptions to the dogma then it made an objective mistake.Since we cannot see the dead. We do not know anyone on earth, dead and saved and who are exceptions to the dogma. We cannot name anyone who is an exception to Fr.Leonard Feeney’s understanding of the dogma.

We cannot see the deceased saved, for them to be exceptions. This was the error of Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits at Boston and it is the error now of Bishop Frederick Henry.They all assume that implicit desire is an exception to the dogma.

Superficially it may appear that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma and many Catholics make this mistake.In the Year of the Faith we can avoid this error and affirm the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus being in accord with Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

We can have two interpretations of Vatican Council II,just as we can have two interpretations of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. One is with the visible dead on earth theory and the other without it.One interpretation is rational (without the visible dead claim) and with the hermeneutic of continuity . The other is irrational and with a break with Tradition.One affirms the dogma on salvation, the writings of St.Robert Bellarmine and the Syllabus of Errors. The other is heretical, it denies a defined dogma with ‘exceptions’, this is the one used by the bishop of Calgary.

So affirm the Faith, outside of which there is no salvation and in which all people need to enter visibly (with faith and baptism) to avoid Hell and to go to Heaven (for salvation). This is Vatican Council II without the claim of being able to see 'ghosts' in 2013. We can affirm the literal interpretation of the dogma along with implicit desire. This is possible for all Catholics, lay and religious.

Vatican Council II is in accord with the traditional teaching on other religions and ecumenism as held by the Society of St.Pius X's St.Dennis Catholic Church,Calgary.The Council is traditional.

 

It is unfortunate that the SSPX understands the Council only as does the Bishop of Calgary while at the same time saying that non Catholic religions are false paths to salvation.This is the confusion with the SSPX.

-Lionel Andrades.

1.

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.

2.

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.- Letter of the Holy Office 1949

3.

Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God. In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues. But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator.-Lumen Gentium 16

"Baptism of Desire," to the extent that it is operative in the World, is an unknown. We cannot observe it, just as we cannot observe "perfect contrition" either- Jehanne. Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus Forum

That "Baptism of Desire," to the extent that it is operative in the World, is an unknown. We cannot observe it, just as we cannot observe "perfect contrition" either. That the One and Triune God would even allow someone with the proper dispositions to end this life without sacramental Baptism is also an unknown, and if He does allow that occur, how often such occurs is anyone's guess.

One the other hand, we can observe the Sacraments in action, and in the case of infant Baptism, it's a 100% guarantee! For adults, we can have a "certain hope," even beyond a "good hope" that if the Sacrament was administered correctly with the proper dispositions, then the individual in question received the divine graces through the merits of Jesus Christ..

One the other hand, we can observe the Sacraments in action, and in the case of infant Baptism, it's a 100% guarantee! For adults, we can have a "certain hope," even beyond a "good hope" that if the Sacrament was administered correctly with the proper dispositions, then the individual in question received the divine graces through the merits of Jesus Christ..

  from the Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus Forum http://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t1008-traditionalists-at-the-stbenedict-centers-usa-could-come-to-the-aid-of-the-sspx#8784

DISTORTION AND THE EUCHARIST

The Bishop of Calgary is distorting the Catechism by assuming the dead who are saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are visible to us.So the Catechism becomes modernist and a break with the past.

The bishop is also distorting Vatican Council II by assuming those saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) are known to us in the present times. Since they are explicit, for him. LG 16 is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus and other teachings of the popes and Church Councils.

The bishop because of this distortion is rejecting an ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus defined three times by Church Councils.

The bishop is also rejecting the dogma on the infallibility of the popes ex cathedra.

Even after being informed he refuses to affirm the Faith on these particular points and offers Holy Mass in Calgary.

It was in Canada that another bishop gave the Eucharist during Holy Mass to the Protestant Prime Minister of Canada Stephen Harper.

Acciording to Bishop Frederick Henry 'Roman Catholics of the Diocese of Calgary who wish to worship according to the Tridentine Rite are invited to celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass, approved by the Diocese, at St. Anthony's Parish, 5340 - 4th Street SW Calgary. A priest from the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter has been appointed Associate Pastor of St. Anthony’s Parish.'(1)

They can offer the Traditional Latin Mass while rejecting the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, interpreting the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II with an irrational premise and rejecting the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra ?- Lionel Andrades

1.

http://www.calgarydiocese.ca/news-a-events/29-parishes.html

APPEAL TO RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES IN CALGARY: ACCEPT THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS ALONG WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF IMPLICIT BAPTISM OF DESIRE

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/01/appeal-to-religious-communities-in.html#links

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church all non Catholics in Calgary are oriented to Hell-unless they convert

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (846) says all need to enter the Church as through a door. This is the term used by the Church Fathers for outside the Church there is no salvation.

It also says faith and baptism are needed for all for salvation.CCC 846 says all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church.So thy could be those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.Since these cases are known only to God they are not exceptions to CCC 846 mentioning all need to enter as through a door and all in the present times need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation, to go to Heaven and avoid Hell. Non Catholics in Calgary who do not have Catholic Faith and have not received the baptism of water are oriented to Hell according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Bishop Frederick Henry rejects this traditional interpretation of the Catechism. He uses the false premise of the dead saved in invincible ignorance etc being visible to us on earth, for him, they will be exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation(Cantate Domino,Council of Florence 1441 etc).These cases of the dead being saved will not be possibilities for him but actual exceptions to the dogma and CCC 846 which says all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water and all need to enter the Church visibly, as through a door.-Lionel Andrades

Whatever happened to Canon Law in Calgary ?

They have a Moderator of the Curia and Vicar General, according to Canon Law in the Diocese of Calgary. He is Father John G.Schuster. The diocese website says:

"In each diocese the diocesan bishop must appoint a vicar general who is provided with ordinary power according to the norm of the following canons and who is to assist him in the governance of the whole diocese. As a general rule, one vicar general is to be appointed unless the size of the diocese, the number of inhabitants, or other pastoral reasons suggest otherwise." (Code of Canon Law #475)

'As vicar of the bishop, the Vicar General exercises the bishop's ordinary executive power over the entire diocese' it is said,' and is the highest official in a diocese after the diocesan bishop or his equivalent in canon law.

'Specific responsibilities for Fr. John as the appointed Vicar General & Moderator of the Curia Office in our diocese include serving as Chairperson for: Council of Priests, Diocesan Planning Commission, Priests Residence (Dorchester Square); Member of: Priests' Personnel Committee, Diocesan Finance Council, Diocesan Consultor; Diocesan Vocation Director in Financial Matters regarding Seminarians.

         Chancellor

"In every curia a chancellor is to be appointed whose principal function, unless particular law establishes otherwise, is to take care that acts of the curia are gathered, arranged and safeguarded in the archive of the curia." (Code of Canon Law #482)

'Sr. Maria Nakagawa, FMM is the appointed Chancellor of the Diocese of Calgary since July 19, 1999, with primary responsibilities of granting marriage dispensations, nullity and sanations(sanctions?).' Her other responsibilities ' include the management function of gathering, arranging and safeguarding curial records and to provide administrational service concerning vital statistics, clergy, sacraments and parish pastoral reports.'

Father John G.Schuster and Sr. Maria Nakagawa too, perhaps like Bishop Frederick Henry assume that the  Catechism of the Catholic Church says the dead saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are visible to us and then like Bishop Frederick Henry are saying' they accept the Catechism in its totality'.

However the e Catechism does not state that invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire cases are visible to us. Neither does it state that these cases are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Bishop Frederick Henry in an e-mail message to me indicates that they are exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma.The same error was made by a former director of the Ecumenism and Inter Religious Dialogue in the Diocese of Calgary.

Perhaps this is also a violation of Canon Law for other Staff members in the Diocese. So according to Bishop Frederick Henry the Catechism of the Catholic Church is interpreted as a break with the past, its a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Canon Law says a Bishop is to affirm all Church teachings.Bishop Frederick Henry is denying the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and is also using a strange interpretation for the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This is extended to Vatican Council II(LG 16 etc).

The bishop is saying there are the exceptions to every one needing to convert into the Church as the dogma on exclusive exclusive  salvation and CC 846 indicates .

The bishop is using a new theory like being able to see the dead who are exceptions to the dogma, theories which are irrational and not mentioned in Church documents but implied by the bishop and maybe Chancellor and Vicar General.

If one of the members of the Diocesan Tribunal held the dead man walking theory  would this be a sign of incompetency?

According to Canon Law a juridical person ( bishop, Religious Superior, Chancellor,Vicar General) is expected to be of sound mind and faithful to the teachings of the Church.

Can this be said of the Fraternity of St.Peter (FSSP) who offer the Traditional Latin Mass in Calgary if they also are are assuming the dead are visible like  the bishop?

Lay parishioners in the diocese could be wondering how these dead people appear.From which direction do they come. Its cold in Calgary and sometimes during snowfalls sight can be deceptive.

The bishop and his Staff could be saying the deceased who have returned from heaven saved in implicit forms of salvation( baptism of desire etc) are  now explicit (visible) for them.

Would there be a violation of Canon Law if a Diocsan Staff member  held the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus along with implicit to us and explicitt for God only, baptism of desire and invincible ignorance?

If cases of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are not visible to them then they are irrelevant to the lliteral interpretation of the dogma as it was known for centuries.Affirming this traditional teaching would not be a violation of Canon Law.

This blog post is not a criticism of the persons mentioned, in the sense,that this is the first time they could be exposed to all this.So they are innocent and the error they hold on to is unintentional. They could be saying"why us and not the CDF or some other diocese which makes the same error".

-Lionel Andrades
________________________________________________

Here is my original response to the passages from the Catechism of the Catholic Chuch which Bishop Frederick cited and asked me to read. He was implying that these quotations were exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.


Dear Bishop Frederick.B Henry,


The quotations you have cited do not contradict the literal intrerpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nor Ad Gentes 7 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.

845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son's Church.

The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is "the world reconciled." She is that bark which "in the full sail of the Lord's cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world." According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah's ark, which alone saves from the flood.334 (30, 953, 1219)

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: (161, 1257)

(Note : it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body. This does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus since we do not know these cases personally .If they were known personally then we could assume that they are exceptions)

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

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

(There can be non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance and these cases would be known only to God.So we cannot suggest that these cases are exceptions to every one needing to convert into the Church in 2013 for salvation).

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and,moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience-those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338 (1260)

VI. The Necessity of Baptism

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.(129, 161, 846)

(There could be a non Catholic saved without the Sacrament of baoptism and this would be known only to God.Since we do not know any such case in 2013 this is not an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus).

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.(2473)

(Similalry only Jesus can judge who has the baptism of desire who is really a martyr. So this cannot be an exception.)

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.(1249)

(The baptism of desire is irrelevant to the dogma. It is a possibility but it is not an exception to the dogma)

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity. (848)

(A person can be saved in invincible ignorance. This is a possibility but it cannot be an exception. Otherwise it would be implying that we can see the dead-saved.)

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism. (1257, 1250)

(We leave children to the mercy of God. We agree here).-L.A

APPEAL TO RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES IN CALGARY: ACCEPT THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS ALONG WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF IMPLICIT BAPTISM OF DESIRE

I would appeal to the religious communities in the Catholic diocese of Calgary,Canada, and also the diocesan priests and sisters there, to accept the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus along with the possibility of being saved with implicit-to-us and explicit-only -for-God ,baptism of desire and invincible ignorance.

Also please accept the Catechism of the Catholic Church without the irrationality of being able to see the dead on earth saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.For these cases to be exceptions to the dogma on salvation, they would have to be visible in Calgary, as Bishop Frederick Henry implies they are.

The bishop is in heresy for rejecting the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and suggesting that he can see the dead saved.

Since he can see the dead saved on earth, Vatican Council II is a break with the past: it is a break with the dogma and other Magisterial documents.

It is heretical to interpret Vatican Council II as a break with the past, cautioned Archbishop Gerhard Mueller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,Vatican.

Religious communities in Calgary can interpret the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II in agreement with the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.

Do not make the same error as Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston, who assumed the baptism of desire was explicitly known to us and so an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.

Please do not make a Profession of Faith , saying 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins'(Nicene Creed) and mean there are three known baptisms.There is only one known baptism, which is the baptism of water.The baptism of desire and blood are known only to God. They are not visible, able to be administered, or repeatable, like the baptism of water.

I also appeal to the Prior at the Society of St.Pius X church, St.Dennis Catholic Church,Calgary, Fr.Leo Boyle, to accept the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus  without explicit-to-us baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance.I appeal to him, to interpret the Catechism of the Catholic Church without the irrationality of being able to see the dead on earth saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.I also appeal to him to clarify that there is nothing in Vatican Council II which contradicts the traditional teaching on other religions and ecumenism.Even if he does not accept Vatican Council II he could clarify that implicit salvation mentioned in Vatican Council II (LG 16 etc) is not explicit and so does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

I do not personally know Bishop Frederick Henry, and I assume that he is a good person like any other bishop, when I refer to heresy, I am referring to the Catechism of the Catholic Church's definition of heresy.-Lionel Andrades


BISHOP FREDERICK HENRY AT ODDS WITH THE CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP AND THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SACRAMENTS,VATICAN http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/01/bishop-frederick-henry-contradicts-at.html

BISHOP FREDERICK HENRY AT ODDS WITH THE CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP AND THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SACRAMENTS,VATICAN

On November 29,2012 when I spoke with an official of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments,Vatican he agreed that we could not see the dead. The dead saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience, seeds of the Word, imperfect communion with the Church, elements of sanctification etc were known only to God. So these cases could not be cited as exceptions to Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II which says all need 'faith and baptism' for salvation.He agreed that Vatican Council II does not contradict itself.Lumen Gentium 16 does not contradict Ad Gentes 7.Neither does Vatican Council II contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or, Tradition in general.Nor does the Catechism of the Catholic Church contradict the dogma.

The dogma was in agreement with past Magisterial documents.

So is this an impediment for the priest offering Mass, if it is known and denied in public?

He said that if the priest knowingly denies Vatican Council II(AG 7), the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Nicene Creed (I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins) then this was an issue for the local bishop. The Congregation leaves this issue,he said, for the bishop to decide.

However now  in the case of the Catholic Bishop of Calgary, it is Bishop Fred Henry himself who is denying the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. He interprets Vatican Council II as a break with the past. He interprets the Catechism of the Catholic Church as suggesting  invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. He makes the same error of the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing who believed that invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire were explicit and visible for us.So for him too they were exceptions to the literal intrpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.

Here is a bishop who is not affirming the Catholic Faith and yet he offers Holy Mass.-Lionel Andrades

Vatican Council II does not contradict itself or the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. We cannot see the dead.- Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments,Vatican

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/vatican-council-ii-does-not-contradict.html#links

Even though the St. Dennis Catholic Church does not accept Vatican Council II the SSPX members in Calgary could inform the bishop that there is nothing rational in the Council which contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/01/even-though-st-dennis-catholic-church.html

BISHOP HENRY UNABLE TO RESPOND TO HERESY CHARGES

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/01/bishop-henry-unable-to-respond-to.html#links

Bishop Frederick Henry does not deny heresy charge

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/01/bishop-frederick-henry-does-not-deny.html#links

BISHOP FREDERICK HENRY AND THE SSPX INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II AS BREAK WITH THE PAST : THEY ASSUME THE DEAD ARE VISIBLE AS DID THE ARCHBISHOP OF BOSTON RICHARD CUSHING

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/01/bishop-frederick-henry-and-sspx.html#links

BISHOP FREDRICK HENRY OF CALGARY,CANADA RESPONDS: SSPX

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/01/bishop-fredrick-henry-of-calgarycanada.html#links

PADRE PIO SAID THAT MARTIN LUTHER IS IN HELL AND CHRISTIANS WHO FOLLOW HIM WILL MEET THE SAME END- Fr.Stefano Manelli F.I, founder of the Franciscans of the Immaculate

Padre Pio said that Martin Luther is in Hell and Christians today who follow him will meet the same end.

Those who do not submit themself to the pope and the teachings of the Catholic Church are also going to Hell.

Father Stefano Manelli F.I founder of the Franciscans of the Immaculate writes that Martin Luther who called himself Pope Luther 1 and condemned the pope of Rome, as going to Hell, was a great heretic.

Fr.Manelli in Il Settimanale di Padre Pio (Jan.20,2013 p.1) said that Christians today who follow Luther are also on the way to Hell.

Fr.Manelli in the Italian weekly , mentioned that Padre Pio said those Christians who believe they can speak directly with God are also going to Hell.

Luther believed he could speak directly with God. He  was precipitated into Hell said Padre Pio.

Fr.Stefano Manelli in his weekly column Il Pensiero di Padre Pio,Pianeta Padre Pio, wrote that  Padre Pio criticized those Christians who believe they can speak directly to God and receive instructions and do not have to submit to the authority of the pope.

This is also a dangerous road writes Fr.Manelli for Christians who believe they are in communion with God without his Vicar and the Catholic Church. They are mistaken and this is an illusion for them,as it is known, he writes, outside the church there is no salvation.

On this point, Padre Pio, with simple words, which were terrible, said that those who believe they can communicate with God directly, are on the way to Hell.

Luther's end was horrible and frightening, he writes, but this will also be the same history of many Christians and Catholics who believe in the teachings of Luther.They risk also going to Hell like Luther, for not listening to the pope.

We need to understand the words of Jesus, in which he delegated St.Peter and his successors the guarantee of a unique Catholic Faith in the Church.(Lk.22,32).This is the guarantee and confirmation given to the popes which is secure and infallible and no one will be lost to Hell who remains with the pope in the Catholic Church.

'Thou art Peter,' said Jesus, ' and upon this rock I will build my Church,and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it' (Mt.16,18).

Fr.Stefano Manelli, who personally knew the saint, said Padre Pio had kept a picture of the pope on his little working table..So always before him was the message,'After Jesus comes the Pope'.(Dopo Gesù viene il papa).

Even we , suggests Fr.Manelli, should quickly free ourself from everything which is far from the pope and not supporting the pope.Even we should value the motto of Padre Pio, 'After Jesus comes the pope'. -Lionel Andrades

FOR FR.FRANCOIS LAISNEY AND BRO.THOMAS AUGUSTINE ASSUME IN PRINCIPLE CASES TO BE EXPLICIT AND REAL

When Brother Thomas Augustine MICM says a catechumen can be saved with a genuine desire, charity and followed with the baptism of water and Father Francois Laisney says a genuine desire and charity with God’s grace is sufficient for salvation they are both referring to a  hypothetical case.

It is important to note that this case is accepted only as a possibility. It is theoretical. This case is not real, visible and known in 2013. It cannot ever be known to us. So it can only be accepted in theory. It is explicit only for God and never explicit for Bro.Thomas Augustine or Fr.Francois Laisney.

So in either of the two ways, what is in principle and does not exist in the present reality, cannot be an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma by Fr. Leonard Feeney.Since it does not exist in fact it cannot be an exception.

Similalry when I say that there are only Catholics in Heaven I mean in principle, in faith, in theory that all those who are saved in Heaven  have received the baptism of water. In reality I have not been to Heaven so I would not know this as a fact.I accept it in faith.

Similarly when Fr. Laisney or a member of the SSPX says there are cases of people in heaven who are there without the baptism of water - this is hypothetical. I would not know this for a fact until I am in Heaven and God allows me to see it for myself. Presently these cases would be explicit only for God.

For the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Brother Thomas Augustine’s community these cases are explicit ?

Jerry:

Let's take a simple declarative statement.

"There exists in Heaven a soul who died outside the Church."

The statement is either true or false. We might not know the answer, but it is true or false, right?

Lionel:

There exists in Heaven a soul who died outside the Church!

How would you know?

How would you know either way if there exists or there does not exist?

This is what I have been saying all this time.

Implicit salvation is always unknown to us.

A possibility is not a reality.

Jerry

I am certain that the Slaves and Fr. Feeney would say "false." I certainly say "false."

Lionel

You would say false since you assume that those saved with the baptism of desire etc, without the Sacraments (CCC 1257) would be concrete cases, known to us and since they are known,they would be known exceptions to Cantate Domino, and so you must reject it.

Jerry

Dogma is God's revealed truth, and must be true both for Him and for us.

Lionel:

Yes. For centuries the Church taught the dogma on salvation along with implicit baptism of desire etc and there was no contradiction. The contradiction came in the 1940s with explicitly known baptism of desire etc. It is the traditionalists who assume that implicit baptism of desire is explicit for us human beings. This was the error of Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits there.

Jerry

If God saves even one soul outside the Church, then He cannot bind us to the dogma, for that would violate truth.

Lionel:

The manner God chooses to save a soul is known only to Him.

For instance someone could die without the baptism of water and God could not condemn him. Instead he could send him or her back to earth to be baptized by the saints. This has been the experience of St. Francis Xavier etc.

When the Sultan who met St.Francis of Assisi was on his death bed Franciscan Friars suddenly appeared and baptized him.

Jerry

 God saves even one soul outside the Church, then He cannot bind us to the dogma, for that would violate truth.

Lionel

Even if he did or did not- what bearing does it have on the truth?

The truth is that everyone on earth needs Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation. (AG 7, Cantate Domino, CCC 846 etc).

If God chooses to save one soul outside the Church, God being God, how does it cancel the dogmatic teaching? Since, you would not know this case, any way.

Jerry

In a subsequent post, you are now saying "For the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary there can be people saved with implicit desire, charity ..."

Lionel

This was a definition of the baptism of desire on the website of a Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary community.

The Slaves accept the baptism of desire with a condition, the necessity of receiving the baptism of water.

For Jerry and other traditionalists there is no in principle and in fact distinction.They simply assume that what can be known only in principle is explicit for us.

When the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257 says God is not limited to the Sacraments and it also says the Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water it is making the in principle and in fact distinction. In principle, in theory a person can be saved without the Sacrament of baptism, in reality, in fact in 2013 every one needs the baptism of water for salvation.

This passage is contradictory for the traditionalists and they have expressed their confusion over it on traditionalist forums.

So when this in principle and in fact distinction is not made it is obvious that Brother Thomas Augustine and Fr. Francois Laisney will interpret Vatican Council II as break with the past. It will be a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, for Brother Thomas Augustine.

Brother Thomas Augustine and the Sisters of St. Benedict Center in the Worcester where they have canonical status, by now could have been approaching other religious communities in the dioceses and asking them to accept the literal interpretation of the dogma along with the baptism of desire accepted in principle as a possibility and known only to God. Like CCC 1257 it would not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction. It is compatible with Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church since implicit to us salvation can never be an exception since it is never explicit for us.

When the St. Benedict Center in Worcester, who have canonical status, affirm the literal interpretation of the dogma along with implicit for us baptism of desire (and with a condition, the baptism of water) it does not violate the Principle of Non Contradiction.

Theoretically, one may ask is this an exception to the rule that everyone needs the baptism of water for salvation (John 3:5)? No! Since it is a hypothetical case it is not an exception. What is a probability (baptism of desire, being saved in invincible ignorance etc) is not a known reality. It is not real. What is accepted or rejected in doctrine is hypothetical and so it cannot be an exception to the dogma which says all need to convert into the church visibly for salvation.

Bother Thomas Augustine at the St.Benedict Center, Worcester and Fr.Francois Laisney of the SSPX are both mixing up an in principle theoretical doctrine as being real and known, they are both like two sides of the same coin.-Lionel Andrades

Traditionalists still assume that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus : no canonical status for the SSPX when they are really in agreement with Vatican Council II

When Jefferey Mirus of Catholic Culture writes a report critical on extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the community of Fr.Leonard Feeney, Brother Andre Marie MICM will respond.

Jefferey Mirus will assume that the baptism of desire is explicit and known to us in personal cases so it is an exception .Brother Andre Marie Prior at the St.Benedict Center,one of Fr.Leonard Feeney's communities in the USA, will defend Fr.Leonard Feeney and say historically and theologically the baptism of desire was not considered a Sacrament and so the baptism of water is also needed for those catechumens who have a genuine desire and perfect charity.

So he will accept the baptism of desire in principle as containing the baptism of water and so it is not an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.It is that every one needs to be a visible member of the Church with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation.

Without the baptism of water there cannot be a catechumen saved for Brother Andre Marie. So in the case of the baptism of desire, God would provide the grace for a preacher to come and baptise the catechumen.

What Brother Andre Marie and Mr.Brian Kelly on the Catholicism.org website have not done is to use another approach . They could simply tell Jeff Mirus that for something to be an exception it has to be known.We don't know any case of the baptism of desire in 2013.

So they accept the baptism of desire as a possibility, followed with the baptism of water, and none of these cases are known to us personally in real life. So how can what we do not know be an exception?

This could be the approach also with the Society of St.Pius X(SSPX).

If there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in Vatican Council II then the Council is in agreement with the SSPX on the subject of other religions and ecumenism.

So Vatican Council II is in agreement with the traditionalists position on other religions and the SSPX does not know this and the St.Benedict Centers are not helping them to know this. If the St.Benedict Center accepts Vatican Council II and also that non Catholic religions are not paths to salvation then the SSPX could use this model. Since the St.Benedict Centers affirm the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and this is compatible with Vatican Council II.

The Sisters of St.Benedict Center, in the diocese of Worcester have canonical status. They affirm the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney, and the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are accepted in principle as possibilities. It is known that they are not explicit for them to be exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma. So Vatican Council II is in accord with extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

If any one protests why are these traditonalists given canonical status when they hold the 'rigorist interpretation' of Fr.Leonard Feeney they simply explain that what does not exist cannot be an exception.They do not know any one in 2013 saved with implicit salvation which is visible for us humans.

In general, I notice on forums, Traditionalists still assume that implicit to us salvation is explicit and visible.Even if they do not accept Vatican Council II, traditionalists with the SSPX and St.Benedict Centers could agree that there is no visible baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance and that these cases can only be accepted in principle.-Lionel Andrades

Even though the St. Dennis Catholic Church does not accept Vatican Council II the SSPX members in Calgary could inform the bishop that there is nothing rational in the Council which contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Bishop Frederick Henry wants the St.Dennis Catholic Church,Calgary to accept the dead man walking theory in Vatican Council II, to get canonical status.The bishop of Calgary like the Vatican Curia cardinals and bishops have canonical status since they affirm Vatican Council II with the dead man walking theory and so the Council emerges modernist.They claim that these cases of the dead visible and saved are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Of course if there were none of these exceptions then Vatican Council II would not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Council would not be modernist and heretical.

The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) members at the St.Dennis Catholic Church in Calgary , may, like other SSPX members, affirm that non Catholic religions are not paths to salvation. However like SSPX members they may also say that the dead saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma on salvation.So for them too like Bishop Frederick Henry, the Catechism and Vatican Council II contradicts extra ecclesiam nulla salus. On this issue the progressives and traditionalists are united.United in irrationality.

So expectedly the St.Dennis Catholic Church rejects Vatican Council II, which contains the false premise of being able to see the dead, and the SSPX members assume, that the Council contradicts their traditional position on other religions.

They could, if they want, based on reason, show the bishop of Calgary that there could be two interpretations to the Catechism and Vatican Council II - a rational and an irrational one.

Even if they are not going to accept Vatican Council II they can still  inform Bishop Frederick Henry that we cannot see the dead so the Catechism and Vatican Council II cannot be interpreted with this false premise.They could still inform the bishop that there is nothing rational in the Council which contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

How can Catholics attend Mass when the bishop  does not accept extra ecclesiam nulla salus, when he denies the dogma with irrationality ? How can he say that he accepts Vatican Council II and the Catechism in its totality and then assume that the dead who are saved are visible to all in 2013? This is his interpretation of the Council and Catechism?.-Lionel Andrades

http://life.nationalpost.com/2012/12/13/religious-differences-calgary-bishop-warns-congregation-that-the-citys-newest-catholic-church-isnt-really-catholic/

BISHOP HENRY UNABLE TO RESPOND TO HERESY CHARGES

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/01/bishop-henry-unable-to-respond-to.html#links

Bishop Frederick Henry does not deny heresy charge 

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/01/bishop-frederick-henry-does-not-deny.html#links

 

BISHOP FREDERICK HENRY AND THE SSPX INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II AS BREAK WITH THE PAST : THEY ASSUME THE DEAD ARE VISIBLE AS DID THE ARCHBISHOP OF BOSTON RICHARD CUSHING

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/01/bishop-frederick-henry-and-sspx.html#links

BISHOP FREDRICK HENRY OF CALGARY,CANADA RESPONDS: SSPX

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/01/bishop-fredrick-henry-of-calgarycanada.html#links

BISHOP HENRY UNABLE TO RESPOND TO HERESY CHARGES

The bishop of Calgary refuses to affirm the Catechism of the Catholic Church without implying that the dead saved are visible to us. Neither will he affirm the Catechism in accord with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II. He rejects the dogma on salvation, since for him invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire cases, are explicit and known in 2013.So for him these cases of the deceased, are defacto explicit exceptions to the dogma which says all need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation.

Bishop Frederick Henry still refuses to affirm the Catechism without the visible dead theory, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II without it being a heretical break with the past.

Bishop Frederick Henry has responded to my last e-mail .He does not discuss my comments on the Catechism quotations which he had cited instead he calls be a liar and a calumniator.

Bishop Henry writes:

It would seem that you have forgotten that lying, detraction, and calumny are sinful. Pity!

My response was:

Dear Bishop Frederick Henry,

Praised be Jesus and Our Lady.

For the record you have not denied the following:

1.That you reject the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with known exceptions of invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.

2. That you consider Vatican Council II a break with the past because of known exceptions.

3.You hold the same error as the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Cushing.

4.You interpret the Catechism of the Catholic Church assuming the dead who are saved, are visible.

You offer the Holy Mass in this condition.

Instead of responding to these points you accuse me of lying and calumny.

Inn Christ

Lionel Andrades

He has responded without acknowledging that he accepts the Catechism and Vatican Council II with the false premise. He accepts them while assuming that the dead saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are visible to us. So for him they are  exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This was the same error of the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing.

Bishop Henry states:

I accept the Catechism and Vatican II in their totality – do YOU?

He still does not want to discuss this issue and affirm the Faith.The shepherd cannot defend or deny a heretical position.

The Society of St.Pius X's  priests and supporters also  deny the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus  with alleged known exceptions.So they also use a hermeneutic of rupture in the interpretation of Vatican Council II similiar to Bishop Frederick Henry.It is possible that this error is also being made at the SSPX's St.Dennis Catholic Church in Calgary.

Bishop Henry and the SSPX use the irrational premise, the Richard Cushing Error in the interpretation of magisterial documents.

I have responded:

Dear Bishop Frederick Henry,

Praised be Jesus and Our Lady.

It is meaningless for you to say that you accept the Catechism of the Catholic Church when you assume that the references to invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire cases are visible to us in 2013.So you assume that the Catechism refers to explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

The Catechism does not state that these cases are explict and known to us and neither does it state that these cases are an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is an irrational premise of yours. You are assuming that the dead saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma.

So you are still denying an ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and you cannot pretend that there are texts in the Catechism which contradict a teaching which is obligatory for all bishops to affirm.

Also since you use the irrational premise of the dead man walking ,saved in invincible ignorance etc and who is visible to you only, for you ,Vatican Council II also must be a break with the dogma on salvation and the past Magisterial texts.

So in your Profession of Faith ,when you say 'I believe in one baptism for the forgivessness of sin' (Nicene Creed) you mean there are three known baptisms,water, desire and blood- and not just one known baptism, that of water.

The Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Gerhard Muller, recently said that it was heretical when progressives interpret Vatican Council II as a break with the past.

I repeat it is also a heresy to deny the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

In Christ

Lionel Andrades

He asks if I accept the Catechism. Yes but not with the dead man walking theory. This was the error of the Archbishop and Jesuits at Boston in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case.-Lionel Andrades