The Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith could have to deny Vatican Council II and the Jewish Left could call the Council anti – Semitic.

One of the District Superiors of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) could issue a statement observing that it is reported on blogs that the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is in accord with Vatican Council II (AG 7).

All need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation (AG 7) and there are no exceptions. There are no known exceptions since those saved in invincible ignorance or with a good conscience (LG 16) etc are known only to God. So they do not contradict the centuries-old literal interpretation of the thrice defined dogma.

So in this sense Vatican Council II is saying outside the church there is no salvation and Jews, Muslims and other non Catholics (Protestants and Orthodox Christians) need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation ( to avoid Hell).

So the SSPX could welcome Vatican Council II’s position on ecumenism and inter religious dialogue.

All non Catholics are oriented to Hell (AG 7). We do not compel them; we do not force them to enter the Church. We do not have the power to do so. However we do have the religious liberty to tell them that Vatican Council II says they need to convert into the Church, all of them with no known exceptions, to avoid Hell (for salvation).

Imagine the world wide storm this would cause. The SSPX affirming Vatican Council II in this case in accord with the salvation dogma!

But what about Fr. Leonard Feeney?!So what? Whatever be your position on Fr. Leonard Feeney, Vatican Council II still affirms the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

He was excommunicated for holding the literal interpretation? No Magisterial text, including the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 states that he was excommunicated for heresy. And assuming he was – Vatican Council II is still in agreement with the traditional literal interpretation of the dogma.

And if he was excommunicated for heresy, for saying there was no baptism of desire or exception to the dogma, then the cardinals who wrote the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 or Pope Pius XII, made an objective, common sense mistake: the baptism of desire is not known so it cannot be an explicit, exception to the dogma which says everyone needs to convert into the Church. We do not know any one saved with the baptism of desire.

How can the ordinary magisterium of the pope, Pope Pius XII, negate Vatican Council II or the dogma which Pope Pius XII himself called an ‘infallible statement’(Letter of the Holy Office 1949).

All the same Vatican Council II affirms the literal interpretation of the dogma, the infallible statement.

According to the Vatican statement,(March 16) there is the possibility of the SSPX being excommunicated unless they affirm Vatican Council II. The statement has not mentioned the interpretation of Vatican Council II expected. The Vatican kept the doctrinal talks secret.So the SSPX could ‘try the waters out’ affirm the dogma (as they are doing so already) and welcome Vatican Council II as being in agreement with the dogma. Then wait for the Vatican’s response.

This will create a political storm and shake the Establishment which tells the pope what he should believe as a Catholic and what is acceptable to them.-Lionel Andrades
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/04/if-sspx-says-they-accept-vatican.html

Muslims need to enter the Church for salvation ( to avoid Hell). Their religion is not a path to salvation.(1).They need to enter the only Ark of Salvation (2).Catholic Faith and the baptism of water are the ordinary mean of salvation. The ordinary means of salvation is not being saved in invincible ignorance (3).Muslims need to convert for salvation.(4).Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.(5).

OBJECTIONS

Lumen Gentium 16

We do not know any non Catholic saved in invincible ignorance or a good conscience (Lumen Gentium 16).Neither do we know any one in the present times saved with the baptism of desire, the Word of God, in imperfect communion with the Church (Vatican Council II). We accept in principle the possibility of these persons being saved ‘in certain circumstances’ (Letter of the Holy Office 1949) however we do not know any such explicit case. So it is not an exception to the magisterial teachings quoted above. The Magisterial teaching says every one needs to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation, all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water to avoid Hell. We know there are no known exceptions on earth. If there is any such case it would be known only to God.

Lumen Gentium 16 mentions that a non Catholic can be saved with a good conscience. LG 16 does not say that this the general, ordinary means of salvation or that we know of particular Muslims saved with a good conscience. We are unable to know who is presently saved among them in Heaven.

So those saved with a good conscience, unknown on earth, are not exceptions to Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, Vatican Council II, Dominus Iesus 20 and the Catechism of the Catholic Church 845 etc. These magisterial documents say all need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell, all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation and that Jesus died for all but to receive this salvation all need to enter the Church and that the Church is the only of Noah that saves in the flood. God the Father wants all people to be united in the Catholic Church.

We don’t know any Musllim saved following his good conscience so it does not contradict the dogma outside the church no salvation.

All one can say is that it is possible that a Muslim can be saved following his good conscience and that in principle we accepts this.

The traditional teaching is that all people, with no known exceptions need to enter the Church with faith and baptism (AG 7) for salvation.( Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) etc.

To say that Muslims in general can be saved by following their conscience is a personal interpretation of Vatican Council II but not the traditional official teaching of the Catholic Church. It’s a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14), Dominus Iesus 20 etc.Contraception and divorce may be popular and the secular media encourages it but this is not the teaching of the Catholic Church. So it is not the teaching of the Catholic Church that Muslims are saved in general by following their conscience

Nostra Aetate

Nostra Aetate, Vatican Council II no where says that non Catholic religion are paths to salvation or that non Catholics are saved in general in their religions. We accept in principle the possibility of a Muslim being saved ‘in certain circumstance’ and know that these cases would b known only to God.

So Nostra Aetate is not a contradiction of Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II which indicates the norm of salvation is Catholic Faith ans the baptism of water.

Catechism of the Catholic Church 846

So when the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846 says all those who are saved are saved through Jesus an the Church this does not contradict the Church teaching which says all need to enter the Church with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.

Lumen Gentium 14 says those who know about Jesus and the Church and yet do not enter cannot be saved. The religious leaders and founders of Islam, the Quran indicates, knew about Jesus and the Catholic Church He founded but chose not to enter.
-Lionel Andrades
_____________________________________________

1.
Above all else, it must be firmly believed 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 (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door”. This doctrine must not be set against the universal salvific will of God (cf. 1 Tim 2:4); “it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation”.-Dominus Iesus 20

2.
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.-Catechism of the Catholic Chuch 845

3.
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.-A Gentes 7, Vatican Council II

4.
submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949.

5.
EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS (EXTRAORDINARY MODE )

• “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

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

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

EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS ( ORDINARY MODE )

Pope Boniface I, Epistle 14.1: “It is clear that this Roman Church is to all churches throughout the world as the head is to the members, and that whoever separates himself from it becomes an exile from the Christian religion, since he ceases to belong to its fellowship.”

Pope Pelagius II (578-590): “Consider the fact that whoever has not been in the peace and unity of the Church cannot have the Lord… Although given over to flames and fires, they burn, or, thrown to wild beasts, they lay down their lives, there will not be (for them) that crown of faith but the punishment of faithlessness… Such a one can be slain, he cannot be crowned… [If] slain outside the Church, he cannot attain the rewards of the Church” (Denzinger, 469).

Saint Gregory the Great (590-604), Moralia: “Now the holy Church universal proclaims that God cannot be truly worshipped saving within herself, asserting that all they that are without her shall never be saved.”

Pope Sylvester II, Profession of Faith, June AD 991: “I believe that in Baptism all sins are forgiven, that one which was committed originally as much as those which are voluntarily committed, and I profess that outside the Catholic Church no one is saved.”

Pope Innocent III (1198–1216), Profession of Faith prescribed for the Waldensians: “With our hearts we believe and with our lips we confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved” (Denzinger 792).

Pope Clement VI, Letter Super Quibusdam (to Consolator the Catholicos of Armenia), September 20, 1351: “In the second place, we ask whether you and the Armenians obedient to you believe that no man of the wayfarers outside of the faith of this Church, and outside the obedience of the Pope of Rome, can finally be saved… In the ninth place, if you have believed and do believe that all who have raised themselves against the faith of the Roman Church and have died in final impenitence have been damned and have descended to the eternal punishments of hell.”

Pope Leo XII (1823–1829), Encyclical Ubi Primum: “It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth Itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members. For we have a surer word of the prophet, and in writing to you We speak wisdom among the perfect; not the wisdom of this world but the wisdom of God in a mystery. By it we are taught, and by divine faith we hold, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and that no other name under heaven is given to men except the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth in which we must be saved. This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church… For the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. With reference to those words Augustine says: ‘If any man be outside the Church he will be excluded from the number of sons, and will not have God for Father since he has not the Church for mother.’”

Pope Gregory XVI (1831–1846), Encyclical Summo Jugiter Studio (on mixed marriages), 5-6, May 27, 1832: “You know how zealously Our predecessors taught that very article of faith which these dare to deny, namely the necessity of the Catholic faith and of unity for salvation. The words of that celebrated disciple of the Apostles, martyred Saint Ignatius, in his letter to the Philadelphians are relevant to this matter: ‘Be not deceived, my brother; if anyone follows a schismatic, he will not attain the inheritance of the kingdom of God.’ Moreover, Saint Augustine and the other African bishops who met in the Council of Cirta in the year 412 explained the same thing at greater length: ‘Whoever has separated himself from the Catholic Church, no matter how laudably he lives, will not have eternal life, but has earned the anger of God because of this one crime: that he abandoned his union with Christ’ (Epsitle 141). Omitting other appropriate passages which are almost numberless in the writings of the Fathers, We shall praise Saint Gregory the Great, who expressly testifies that this is indeed the teaching of the Catholic Church. He says: ‘The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved’ (Moral. in Job, 16.5). Official acts of the Church proclaim the same dogma. Thus, in the decree on faith which Innocent III published with the synod of the Lateran IV, these things are written: ‘There is one universal Church of the faithful outside of which no one at all is saved.’ Finally, the same dogma is expressly mentioned in the profession of faith proposed by the Apostolic See, not only that which all Latin churches use (Creed of the Council of Trent), but also that which the Greek Orthodox Church uses (cf. Gregory XIII, Profession ‘Sanctissimus’) and that which other Eastern Catholics use (cf. Benedict XIV, Profession ‘Nuper ad Nos’)… We are so concerned about this serious and well known dogma, which has been attacked with such remarkable audacity, that We could not restrain Our pen from reinforcing this truth with many testimonies.”

Pope Pius IX (1846–1878), Allocution Singulari Quadem, December 9, 1854: “Not without sorrow we have learned that another error, no less destructive, has taken possession of some parts of the Catholic world, and has taken up its abode in the souls of many Catholics who think that one should have good hope of the eternal salvation of all those who have never lived in the true Church of Christ. Therefore, they are wont to ask very often what will be the lot and condition of those who have not submitted in any way to the Catholic faith, and, by bringing forward most vain reasons, they make a response favorable to their false opinion. Far be it from Us, Venerable Brethren, to presume on the limits of the divine mercy which is infinite; far from Us, to wish to scrutinize the hidden counsel and “judgements of God” which are “a great abyss” (Ps. 35.7) and cannot be penetrated by human thought. But, as is Our Apostolic Duty, we wish your episcopal solicitude and vigilance to be aroused, so that you will strive as much as you can to drive form the mind of men that impious and equally fatal opinion, namely, that the way of eternal salvation can be found in any religion whatsoever. May you demonstrate with skill and learning in which you excel, to the people entrusted to your care that the dogmas of the Catholic faith are in no wise opposed to divine mercy and justice.

“For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood…

Pope Pius IX (1846–1878), Encyclical Singulari Quidem March 17, 1856): “Teach that just as there is only one God, one Christ, one Holy Spirit, so there is also only one truth which is divinely revealed. There is only one divine faith which is the beginning of salvation for mankind and the basis of all justification, the faith by which the just person lives and without which it is impossible to please God and come to the community of His children (Romans 1; Hebrews 11; Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 8). There is only one true, holy, Catholic Church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church. There is only one See founded on Peter by the word of the Lord (St. Cyprian, Epistle 43), outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation. He who does not have the Church for a mother cannot have God for a father, and whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church (ibid, On the Unity of the Catholic Church). … Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control.”[7]

Pope Pius IX (1846–1878), Encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore, August 10, 1863: “And here, beloved Sons and Venerable Brothers, We should mention again and censure a very grave error in which some Catholics are unhappily engaged, who believe that men living in error, and separated from the true faith and from Catholic unity, can attain eternal life. Indeed, this is certainly quite contrary to Catholic teaching.

Pope Pius IX The Syllabus of Errors, attached to Encyclical Quanta Cura, 1864: [The following are prescribed errors:] “16. Men can, in the cult of any religion, find the way of eternal salvation and attain eternal salvation. – Encyclical Qui pluribus, November 9, 1846.

“17. One ought to at least have good hope for the eternal salvation of all those who in no way dwell in the true Church of Christ. – Encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore, August 10, 1863, etc.”

Pope St. Pius X (1903–1914), Encyclical Jucunda Sane: “It is our duty to recall to everyone great and small, as the Holy Pontiff Gregory did in ages past, the absolute necessity which is ours, to have recourse to this Church to effect our eternal salvation.”

Pope Benedict XV (1914–1922), Encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum: “Such is the nature of the Catholic faith that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole, or as a whole rejected: This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

Pope Pius XI (1922–1939), Encyclical Mortalium Animos: “The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation… Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.”

Pope Pius XII (1939–1958), Allocution to the Gregorian University (17 October 1953): “By divine mandate the interpreter and guardian of the Scriptures, and the depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation: She alone, by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit, is the source of truth.”-Wikipedia
_______________________________________________
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2012/02/does-catholic-church-teach-that-muslims.html#links

Invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are not exceptions to the dogma.

There can be no explicit, defacto, known cases of persons saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. So it is not an issue with respect to the dogma, unless, it is made an issue and made to appear as explicit and known.

Here are the popes affirming the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

POPE PIUS IX (Allocution December 9th, 1854)

Pope Pius IX held the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and also affirmed the possibility of non Catholics being saved in invincible ignorance, cases of which are unknown to us and so are not explicit exceptions to the dogma.

Pope Pius IX was saying: (Defacto):’We must hold as of the faith, that out of the Apostolic Roman Church there is no salvation; that she is the only ark of safety, and whosoever is not in her perishes in the deluge…’ and (Dejure): ‘we must also, on the other hand, recognize with certainty that those who are invincible in ignorance of the true religion are not guilty for this in the eyes of the Lord…’

Defacto (explicitly) everyone needs to enter the Church for salvation (to avoid Hell) and de jure (in principle) and known only to God, there could be non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance etc, ‘in certain circumstances’ (Letter of the Holy Office 1949).

QUANTO CONFICIAMUR

(Defacto) 8. ‘… no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church – Quanto Conficamur, Pope Pius IX 1863

(Dejure) 7. ‘… those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments…-Quanto Conficamur

LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 issued during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII mentions ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible statement’.

Here is the ‘dogma’:

(Defacto) ‘… it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

‘… none of those existing outside the Catholic Church… can have a share in life eternal… unless before death they are joined with Her… No one… can be saved, unless he (Defacto) remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.) http://catholicism.org/category/outside-the-church-there-is-no-salvation

(Dejure) ‘… when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire…’

These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members,(Defacto) and those who are united to the Church only by desire (Dejure).- Letter of the Holy Office 1949 (Emphasis added).

VATICAN COUNCIL II

(Defacto) ‘The Church…is necessary for salvation… faith and baptism…for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church.’- Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II.

(Dejure) ‘…those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God…’ -Lumen Gentium 16

‘Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church…’- Lumen Gentium 16

If one uses the irrational defacto-defacto analysis of the above magisterial texts instead of the traditional dejure-defacto interpretation it would mean the popes contradicted themselves and that Vatican Council II contradicted an ex cathedra dogma. It would be a criticism of the infallibility of the popes ex cathedra. It would also be contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction. It is heresy to claim that there are defacto exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

With the defacto-dejure analysis we see that the Magisterial texts affirm the centuries-old interpretation of the Church Fathers, the saints, the popes and Councils, including Vatican Council II. This was the traditional interpretation of Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston. This is the teaching of Pope John Paul II’s Dominus Iesus (20) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church 845,846 and also during the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI in Responses to Some questions regarding certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church (2007).-Lionel Andrades
_____________________________________________

Jesus taught to turn the other cheek and vengeance is the lords or ours. A true servant of Jesus Christ doesn’t have to speculate whether it was Gods intention to bring something to light. Alex jones does hit home on a lot of truth even about catholicism. The background of Constantine is far from what Jesus taught. I’d like to see the statute of the fern tree in St peters garden or square be removed! We know it comes from Egypt and represents the pineal gland the eye of Horus. Jesus never mixed religion and politics and he never clothed his outfit with physical wealth!! The Vatican is its own state, whilst millions starve your churches are lined with Gold. The physical temple has no function anymore only the one that will be rebuilt for the Antichrist which if your fluent with Gods word will happen. Their are obvious signs that the Vatican is up to no good but the souls of billions will be at your hands. When I see a pope ‘christian?’ kissing a quaran I think, this is not what God meant as a prayer house for many nations. The Bible was kept written in Latin for many years and those that eventually translated it were killed! The Vatican controlled Christianity for at least a thousand years and noone even questioned it? You have archives of valuable information kept away from public knowledge and you serve Catholicism more than you follow the true will of God. Your God is the prince of this world. Do an article On someone that will tell the truth and does stand for what Jesus really taught. Store your treasure up on heaven like Jesus taught and be less concerned of material wealth. The disciples sold and shared amongst themselves and gave to others. Interesting to see though that Rome and Germany formed the first treaty for this united Europe. Your words are just a smell in the nostrils of the one true creator. It may not seem to be your fault that your misled but a true relationship with God is a two way thing and Jesus has no place for a pope. It’s totally unbiblical to quote that Peter was ordained as the first pope. You need to understand what Jesus meant in reference to ‘upon this rock I’ll build my church’.
I love you to pieces and your only protecting what you think you know but look harder and maybe you’ll find the truth. Who are you to say that anyone should convert to the catholic religion. God is not in your church but he is in the hearts of some of your congregation. Don’t put words in the mouth of God that he never spoke. Whether Alex Jones had a mis hap vocally or not any true Christian can discern that he needs to know what Jesus really did on that cross and so do you. The veil was ripped once so that now you and I can bodly stand before his throne and it is only Christ Jesus that an mediate for you and me. Many are called but few are chosen, only Jesus is the way the truth and the light. Come of your pride and humbly ask God to give you wisdom. We do live in a very changing time right now. The Vatican is powerful but not blessed by God. There is far to much symbology around the Vatican that an educated person can see, is not right. I have not purposely set out to be negative towards you it to use a comment like ‘i hope he converts to the traditional catholic way is very condescending. It’s not about the large number of Catholics, read your bible. The last days will be cut short to save the elect. do you have any idea who the elect are? God works in humble vessels and it’s our body that is the temple but only if you have the spirit of the lord within you. Do you?

Short answer, Pope Benedict emphatically embraces both Christ’s bodily Resurrection and the resurrection of the body, and has stated as much in unambiguous terms innumerable times. Vogan distorts a handful of quotations that are perfectly orthodox in context.

USCCB’s Notification on the Fr.Peter Phan case also reeks with Cushingism

A traditionalist website has listed the heresies of the past and among the modern heresies has been placed-Feeneyism.

The heresy is Cushingism and not Feeneyism.

Cushingism says there is salvation outside the Church implying that those saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire are explicitly known to us and so contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The dogma says all need to convert into the church for salvation.

Cushingism gets its name from the Archbishop of Boston Richard Cushing who in the 1940’s rejected the centuries-old interpretation of the dogma.

Richard Cushing opposed Fr. Leonard Feeney who held the traditional teaching on the dogma outside the church there is no salvation. He was supported by the Jesuits and the Jewish Left media in Boston.

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 addressed to Cardinal Cushing mentioned ‘the dogma’ which was interpreted consistently for centuries. It was the same interpretation as that of Fr. Leonard Feeney.

The Letter also mentions the possibility of a person being saved with the baptism of desire but nowhere says that it is an exception to the dogma or that these cases are explicitly known to us.

Likewise Vatican Council II maintained the traditional teaching and the interpretation of Fr. Leonard Feeney. Ad Gentes 7 states all need to enter the Church for salvation with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water. Lumen Gentium 16 mentions the possibility of non Catholics being saved in invincible ignorance. Again, contrary to Cushingism it does not state that these cases are explicitly known to us or are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Dominus Iesus says salvation is available for all however to receive it one needs to enter the Church, the Church is necessary. (N.20).

Cushingism refutes this teaching and says that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are exceptions.Cushingites claim Fr.Leonard Feeney rejected these ‘exceptions’ to the dogma and so held the ancient ‘rigorist’ interpretation.Cushingites assume that implicit baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma. This is irrational.

Cushingism is a widespread modern heresy in the Catholic Church.
-Lionel Andrades

THE HOLY FATHER POPE BENEDICT XVI IS A CUSHINGITE
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/05/holy-father-pope-benedict-xvi-is.html

I had been writing to many religious in the Diocese of Pennsylvania,Harrisburg where Bishop Rhoades was originally posted.This was during the controversy there. Bishop Rhoades could not say that Jews need to convert into the Church for salvation, is the teaching of the Church. Robert Sungenis called the bishop; his bishop, and also Catholics United for the Faith,Steubenville, ‘heretics’.They still did not affirm the faith and began a campaign against Robert to make him change his views.

Now Michael Vorris has affirmed the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and has produced some good videos on the Jews and the subject of the Catholic Church being the continuation of the Jewish religion.

Real Catholic TV.com’s financier however lives in the diocese of Bishop Rhoades and could be asked to remove the name ‘Catholic’ .

Robert Sungenis has changed the name of his website to the Bellarmine Report and continues th same apostolate.He still says that Jesus, the Catholic Church and the Bible teaches that Jews need to convert.

He disagrees with the ADL , telling Catholics what to believe, and says Catholics are the Chosen People of God now, the people of the New Covenant (Nostra Aetate,Vatican Council II). Also Vatican Council II,Nostra Aetate does not say that Jews or other non Catholics, do not have to convert into the Catholic Church. This is the propaganda posted on the website of the Boston Archdiocese.

It’s unlikely that Bishop Kevin Rhoades would affirm this same teaching in public. So when Wikipedia reports that Robert Sungenis has been corrected by ‘ecclesiastical authority’, so what ? The ecclesiastical authority, in this case, is the local bishop, who is not affirming a defined dogma.

A Catholic who rejects a defined dogma like outside the church no salvation is automatically excomunicated. He has no right to use the word ‘Catholic’.
-Lionel Andrades

It’s a Free Country (Michael Vorris RealCatholicTV.com video)
http://youtu.be/9-0aCDYDbnA

Being saved with the baptism of desire etc he said is an impossibility. ( ‘impossibilisimo’).The Franciscan had got it right. The baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are not ‘practical’ ( defacto) exceptions .To claim that they are practical exceptions would be indifferentism and syncretism. It would be a negation of an infallible teaching. This would be a mortal sin and heresy. The stuff of excommunications. It would be a sacrilege for the priest offering Holy Mass.

Today morning at 10.30 a.m the priest offered Holy Mass in Italian with his face towards the altar and not the congregation. Communicants also received the Eucharist kneeling on a single pew, placed in the centre aisle.He was the Rector of the Church, Santa Maria di Annunziata, Rome.The Rector from the community Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate founded by Fr. Stefano Manelli F.I spoke on the necessity of the baptism of water for all people to go to Heaven.

On the feast of the baptism of Our Lord, in his homily he said, that being saved with the baptism of desire is an impossibility and is accepted only in theory.

Most of his homily dealt with the subject of the necessity of the baptism of water for salvation. The ordinary means.

There is the need for missionaries he said who would go out to the pagans. The Church is missionary.

The Rector based his talk on the teachings of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. However he left out the issue of the Protestants and the Orthodox Christians who were baptized with water.

Protestants who die immediately after receiving the baptism of water I thought could go to Heaven. If they lived on after baptism they would need to live the Gospel according to the teachings of the Catholic Church and with the necessary helps of the Sacraments. Without the Sacraments of the Catholic Church they cannot go to Heaven. This is similar to a Catholic in mortal sin who does not use the Sacrament of Penance.He would be on the way to Hell.

The homily today was on a positive and pleasant note according to the instructions of the Vatican and the Vicariate. Since I have been writing on this subject I could understand the priest’s nuances and accent of certain points. In brief what he was saying, and not saying clearly and directly, is that millions of people are oriented to Hell. Since they are not in the Catholic Church.

He was saying really that all the members of non Christian religions (Hindus, Jews, Muslims etc) are oriented to Hell ‘practically’ and we do not know any case ‘practically’, of a non Catholic saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance.

So ‘practically’ there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Since only ‘in theory’ we accept that a non Catholic can be saved with a baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance.

The ordinary way ‘to go to Paradise’ (and avoid the fires of Hell) is the baptism of water given to adults with Catholic Faith in the Catholic Church.

I was thinking to myself, that since practically we do not know any case of a person saved in invincible ignorance, CCC 847-848 (invincible ignorance) is superfluous in the Catechism of the Catholic Church under the subheading Outside the Church No Salvation. Since in reality (practically) we do not know these ‘exceptions’.They cannot be exceptions to the traditional teaching that everyone needs to convert into the Church to avoid Hell.

The Catechism could suggest wrongly, or the reader could imply wrongly, that those saved with the baptism of desire are known to us practically. These cases it could be implied wrongly, are not just theoretical .

Also in these times the confusion has increased. Now due to political pressure the Vatican is teaching wrongly that Jews do not have to convert into the Church for salvation in the present times and that there is no attempt by the Church to convert Orthodox Christians.

Yet according to the dogma Cantate Domino, Council of Florence and according to the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, all Jews, Orthodox Christians and Protestants are oriented to Hell unless they convert into the Catholic Church.

The Franciscan priest recalled Jesus’ missionary teaching to ‘go out into the whole world and proclaim the Good News and baptize all people .Those who believe will be saved, those who are not baptized and do not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:15-16).Jews,Othodox Christians and Protestants do not believe within the Catholic Church.

The Franciscan had got it right. The baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are not ‘practical’( defacto) exceptions.To claim that they are practical exceptions would be indifferentism and syncretism. It would be a negation of an infallible teaching. This would be a mortal sin and heresy. The stuff of excommunications. It would be a sacrilege for the priest offering Holy Mass.-Lionel Andrades

Since the time of the Archbishop Cardinal Richard Cushing it is assumed there are two interpretations of the dogma. 1)the rigorist interpretation of Fr. Leonard Feeney, the popes and saints and 2) the non rigorist interpretation. The non rigorist interpretation says everyone needs to enter the Church for salvation except for those in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. It is assumed here that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma. So this is a ‘new ‘interpretation.

We now know that there is only one interpretation of the dogma, the centuries old interpretation since the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are not known to us.

It is assumed that Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance, good conscience) is an exception to the dogma. This would be assuming that those saved in invincible ignorance are defacto known to us in particular cases. We know that they are not visible and explicitly known to us but known only to God. So they are not exceptions to the dogma.

De facto everyone needs to enter the Church for salvation. De jure in principle those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are known only to God. The baptism of water is explicit. The baptism of desire is implicit.

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was addressed directly to the Archbishop of Boston. It was critical of the Archbshop. It mentioned ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible statement’. The dogma does not mention any exceptions. The dogma also indicates, like Fr. Leonard Feeney, that everyone needs to explicitly enter the Church for salvation.

Today the USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops), Eternal Word Television Network, Catholic Answers, Society of St. Pius X, Pontifical seminaries and universities, sedevacantists, priests, nuns and lay Catholics are all unknowingly following the legacy of the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits of Boston College.

They assume the baptism of desire etc is visible and so is an exception to the dogma.
-Lionel Andrades

Whatever be ones opinion on Fr. Leonard Feeney we can all agree that there is no visible baptism of desire and implicit baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma outside the church there is no salvation.

People have different opinions about Fr. Leonard Feeney and they usually repeat what others have said or written about him. They are unable to provide any text written by him which is heretical.

The excommunication was for disobedience to Church authority. He refused to go to Rome when called, he refused to accept a transfer and he called the Archbishop Cardinal Richard Cushing a heretic. It was unbelievable at that time that a cardinal could teach heresy. Today, we have the example of Cardinal Walter Kaspar, Cardinal Carlo Martini S.J etc.

The Archbishop believed those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire were exceptions to the dogma and to Fr. Leonard Feeney’s traditional interpretation. For him the baptism of desire would be visible for it to be an exception to the dogma. This is the rejection of the dogma which says all need to convert into the Church for salvation. The Archbishop rejected the dogma, with his exceptions, which Pope Pius XII called the ‘infallible statement’ in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. The Letter was addressed to the Archbishop and not Fr.Leonard Feeney. The pope was telling the Archbishop that all non Catholics in Boston need to convert into the Catholic Church to avoid the fires of Hell. The ‘dogma’ mentioned in the Letter did not mention any exceptions like the baptism of desire. This was an issue raised by Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits in Boston and which was then inserted in Vatican Council II . The Archbishop did not know the Faith or did not want to profess it.

The Church has accepted the baptism of desire (Council of Trent etc) but to claim that it is not implicit but explicit and is an exception to the dogma is heresy.

Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center were disobedient as the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 mentions. They were disobedient but not heretical.

De facto everyone needs to enter the Church, as taught by the dogma. De jure a person can be saved with implicit baptism of desire and it would be known only to God. The baptism of water and teaching someone the Catholic Faith is explicit. The baptism of desire is never explicitly known to us.

So we accept the baptism of desire (Letter of the Holy Office, Council of Trent) and also the possibility of non Catholics being saved in invincible ignorance (Lumen Gentium 16) however we do not imply that they are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. -Lionel Andrades