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

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
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/12/can-you-direct-me-to-tract-or-article.html

I would like to place the following report ‘SEDEVACANTISTS REJECT COUNCIL OF TRENT BAPTISM OF DESIRE AND ASSUME IT IS NOT HYPOTHETICAL’on a pdf.file. If someone can place this report on a pdf.file and make it available on the internet please go ahead. You have my permission. Also you are free to publish and print this report. No copyright permission is needed.

Lionel Andrades
____________________________________________________

SEDEVACANTISTS REJECT COUNCIL OF TRENT BAPTISM OF DESIRE AND ASSUME IT IS NOT HYPOTHETICAL

Council of Trent does not say if the Baptism of Desire is de facto or de jure known to us.

First they wrote off the baptism of desire of Trent, then they assume it is real and not hypothetical for us, and then, anyone who affirms the baptism of desire is called a heretic.

For centuries the Church knew that the baptism of desire was not known to us in particular cases it was accepted in principle only. It could only be accepted in principle; it was not repeatable like the baptism of water. We could not administer the baptism of desire and so it did not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. (Cantate Domino, Council of Trent 1441).

The Most Holy Family Monastery, New York sedevacantists for whom a defacto-known- to- us- in- the- present- times- baptism of desire is central to their media apostolate, accuse Catholics of being in heresy since they affirm the baptism of desire. The sedevacantists conclude this must contradict the dogma Cantate Domino.

It is true to reject an ex cathedra dogma is a mortal sin and there are Catholics who have rejected the dogma Cantate Domino, extra ecclesiam nulla salus either through ignorance or misinformation or fear of persecution. So the Dimond brothers are correct on this aspect of the truth.

However when one affirms the baptism of desire, it is not a rejection of Cantate Domino, since the baptism of desire is always a concept for us. It is hypothetical. It can only be de facto for God. We do not know a single case in the present times or in the past. No one says there were four baptism of desire cases in Rome last month, or three in New York last year.

Since we do not know of a single case how can it contradict the dogma which says everyone must be an explicit member of the Catholic Church for salvation?

The baptism of desire and invincible ignorance cases are implicit and so we do not know any such person saved implicitly.

The Council of Trent mentions the baptism of desire but does not claim that it is defacto, explicitly known to us as the MHFM would imply, infer and then assume.

So Peter and Michael Dimond reject the Council of Trent on the baptism of desire while all over their website they are emphasizing Catholic Tradition. They then assume the baptism of desire is explicitly known to us and then conclude that there are so many Catholics who are in heresy.

1) The MHFM do not make the explicit-implicit, defacto-dejure, distinction.

2) They assume Vatican Council II on the issue of extra ecclesiam nulla salus contradicts Cantate Domino since for them invincible ignorance (Lumen Gentium 16) is de facto and not in the de jure category.

This was the error made by Cardinal Richard Cushing, Archbishop of Boston along with the Jesuits there. It was picked up by the secular media and supported by dissenters. The sedevacantists have also, perhaps, unknowingly, made the same false assumption. They are using the false propaganda.

The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus has not been retracted by the Vatican. There is no Church document which makes this claim.

Since the baptism of desire is not de facto known to us there is no text in Vatican Council II which contradicts Cantate Domino.

Fr.Leonard Feeney held the same position as Cantate Domino so how could be excommunicated for heresy as the secular propaganda continues.

Since there is no baptism of desire that we know of Fr.Leonard Feeney was correct in saying there is no baptism of desire (that we know of).

The problem still exists of Catholics denying Cantate Domino by claiming that Vatican Council II or the Fr.Leonard Feeney Case has changed this teaching.When done intentionally this is a sin.

There are others who interpret the Catechism as a break from Tradition and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. When done intentionally it is a rejection of the dogma and heresy.

A Catholic who has been informed many times and still rejects Cantate Domino on his website or on a public forum is in public mortal sin. A person in public mortal sin is not to receive the Eucharist until he has received absolution at the Confessional and removed the public scandal.

One cannot for example promote abortion or have an abortion because of financial or other worldly interests. One cannot commit a mortal sin, e.g deny an ex cathedra dogma, to protect ones life style, job, reputation or other worldly interests.

According to Veritatis Splendor a mortal sin is a mortal sin and the external act indicates the internal intention. This is very different from some of the misinterpretations of mortal sin based on the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

According to Canon Law a priest in mortal sin is not to offer Mass in that condition. Similarly a lay man in public mortal sin should not commit a sacrilege.

COUNCIL OF TRENT DOES NOT SAY IF THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS DEFACTO OR DE JURE KNOWN TO US

The Council of Trent mentions the baptism of desire but does not say if it is de facto or de jure known to us. Just about everyone, from the Most Holy Family Monastery to the Urbaniana, Angelicum, Gregorian and other Pontifical Universities in Rome assume, its is de facto known to us in the present times.

By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

Canon IV-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.”-Council of Trent
American sedevacantists imply the Baptism of desire is de facto known to us in the present times.

Those who believe in this latter idea (that baptism of desire can apply to Jews or Muslims, etc.) would have to immediately abandon it upon seeing any of the infallible definitions on Outside the Church There is No Salvation. If not, they are definitely heretics who have been automatically excommunicated from the Church. One could not reasonably believe that members of non-Catholic religions being saved is compatible with Outside the Church There is No Salvation.- page 167, The Dogma that there is No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church and without the Catholic Faith and refuting baptism of desire from the website of the Most Holy Family Monastery,NY
WHAT IS THE CREDIBILITY OF URBANIANA PONTIFICAL UNIVERSITY, ROME ?

The Rector and professors at the Urbaniana Pontifical University, Rome are teaching the same error as the sedevacantists Most Holy Family Monastery (MHFM), USA. They both imply that those saved with the baptism of desire are de facto known to us in the present times so it contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

The sedevancantists reject the baptism of desire completely. The MHFM believes it’s an exception to Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441, on extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Sandra Mazzolini a professor at Urbaniana rejects Cantate Domino as it was interpreted for centuries. She also believes that those saved with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance are known to us in the present times. So it contradicts the dogma Cantate Domino.

The sedevacantists affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Urbaniana denies it. They both wrongly assume that cases of the baptism of desire are as real as the baptism of water.

They both believe that the dogma is opposed by a baptism of desire which is defacto, real and known to us personally .They are united in the error here.

Yet a student at Urbaniana University could reason out that the baptism of desire is only known to God. It is de facto for God only. We do not know a single case. We can only accept it in principle (de jure).It is always hypothetical, a concept for us.

How can what is hypothetical for us contradict Cantate Domino on everyone explicitly needing to be a formal member of the Catholic Church for salvation?

Sandra Mazzolini is promoting her book in Italian in which she implies non Catholics are de facto saved with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance. These cases it is implied are known to us in the present times. So she assumes this contradicts the ‘rigorist interpretation’ of the centuries-old dogma.

She offers a course for students at the Urbaniana which teaches that the dogma extra eccleisam nulla salus has ‘developed’. This claim is made in the Urbaniana University Handbook (Kalendarium).

It has ‘developed’ for her in Vatican Council II as it has for the Urbaniana Rector, since Vatican Council II says non Catholics could be saved in invincible ignorance with a good conscience, by the Word of God, in partial communion with the Church. All these examples according to Urbaniana, refer to de facto cases known in the present time.

Yet it is common sense that we do not personally know any of these cases. They are hypothetical for us. Something we can only accept in principle, so how can they contradict Cantate Domino?

Is this what is being taught to Catholic students and seminarians at this Pontifical University approved by the Congregation for Catholic Education? Yes.

The university assumes there is text in Vatican Council II which contradicts the dogma. There is no text.

The Catholic Church has not retracted the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus . For centuries the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance were known and it was not an issue. It was not made into a new doctrine to change, reject or ‘develop’ extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

The dogma is in accord with Ad Genets 7, Catechism of the Catholic Church N.845, 846.

Dogmas and doctrines are being changed in Pontifical Universities – in this case, with a common sense error.

THE GREAT BAPTISM OF DESIRE HOAX : FROM THE MOST HOLY FAMILY MONASTERY, CATHOLIC ANSWERS,USCCB, PONTIFICAL UNIVERSITIES AND SEMINARIES TO NUMEROUS OTHERS TODAY

I can infer that the baptism of desire is unknown to us since, it is only accepted in principle and is never defacto known in the present times in particular cases.

1. Only Jesus knows who is saved with the Baptism of desire.

2. We do not personally know any case in the past, present or future. We cannot say we know someone saved with the baptism of desire. None of us knows any person.

3. Since the baptism of desire is a concept, something accepted in principle, it cannot be real and repeatable like the baptism of water.

4. Since we can only accept it in principle(de jure)it does not conflict with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the Church there is no salvation).The dogma Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441 indicates all non Catholics need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation. There are no exceptions since the baptism of desire or blood cannot be administered.

5. So everyone with no exception needs the baptism of water with Catholic Faith to go to Heaven and avoid Hell. If there is anyone saved with the baptism of desire it will be known to God only.

6. The Catholic Church has not retracted the dogma outside the church there is no salvation (Cantate Domino, Bull Unam Sanctam, Fourth Lateran Council) which is in accord with Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II ( all need baptism for salvation), Catechism of the Catholic Church 846( the Church is like a door in which all enter), 845 (The Church is like the only Ark of Noah that saves in the Flood and God wants all to be united in the Catholic Church), Dominus Iesus 20 etc.

7. So when the sedevacantists Most Holy Family Monastery (MHFM) claim that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma Cantate Domino it is irrational. For them the baptism of desire is not just a concept but a de facto, visible reality like the baptism of water. This is a hoax.

8. Similarly when the liberals who oppose the MHFM say Lumen Gentium 16 (on invincible ignorance) contradicts the dogma it is irrational. They (USCCB, Notification on Fr. Peter Phan etc) imply that we know cases in the present times saved in invincible ignorance. So for them it contradicts the dogma Cantate Domino. Yet we know that those saved in invincible ignorance can only be a concept, a principle we accept. It’s a hoax (by Catholic Answers, EWTN etc) to suggest that those saved in invincible ignorance, unknown to us, contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II.

WILL GERRY MATATICS LEAVE SEDEVACANTISM ?

Gerry Matatics has communicated to us that he is in full agreement on sedevacantism and the salvation dogma. That is to say, Gerry holds the sedevacantist position and also agrees that is the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church that the Catholic Faith and the Sacrament of Baptism are absolutely necessary for salvation with no exceptions for “baptism of desire”- from the website of the Most Holy Family Monastery.
I Lionel Andrades wish to communicate to all that I too am ‘in full agreement with the salvation dogma’. I agree to the ‘infallible teaching of the Catholic Church that Catholic Faith and the Sacrament of Baptism are absolutely necessary for salvation’, and there are no ‘ exceptions for ’ a de facto, known to us in the present times, “baptism of desire”.

However I am a member of the Catholic Church,faithful to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI and his predecessor popes and I am not a sedevacantist

In 2005 apologist Gerry Matatics , Founder and President, Biblical Foundations International did not know there was an alternative.

Now I am saying that the baptism of desire in its very nature is not an exception to the dogma, since it cannot be defacto known to us ever ; we do not know anyone on earth saved with the baptism of desire ,invincible ignorance etc.

De facto every adult with no exception needs to enter the Catholic Church with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation.

De jure in principle, as a possibility known only to God, a non Catholic can be saved with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance in the manner God wants.We do not know any de facto cases. So it does not contradict the dogma Cantate Domino.

Peter and Michael Dimond call people heretics: for the MHFM baptism of desire is de facto knowable and contradicts Cantate Domino

Commonsense says the baptism of desire in its nature is always known only in principle, de jure, so how can it contradict Pope John Paul II, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and numerous others charged as heretics and apostates ?

Peter and Michael Dimond, sedevacantists of the Most Holy Family Monastery, NY are calling people heretics on their website. Since they believe that the baptism of desire is de facto and known personally and so contradicts Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, the ex cathedra dogma on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

The baptism of desire is not like the baptism of water which is real, de facto, tangible, visible and repeatable. Everybody needs it for salvation and there are no exceptions. The baptism of desire is not an exception, to everybody needing the baptism of water. Since the baptism of desire is known only to God .It is not de facto and real for us.

The baptism of desire does not contradict the dogma as the MHFM state in their book on this subject and in comments all over their website.

Those who believe in this latter idea (that baptism of desire can apply to Jews or Muslims, etc.) would have to immediately abandon it upon seeing any of the infallible definitions on Outside the Church There is No Salvation. If not, they are definitely heretics who have been automatically excommunicated from the Church. One could not reasonably believe that members of non-Catholic religions being saved is compatible with Outside the Church There is No Salvation.- page 167, The Dogma that there is No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church and without the Catholic Faith and refuting baptism of desire
They have been informed. These posts have been sent to them. If they persist would it not be calumny and scandal? A mortal sin?

SEDEVACANTISTS SLIP ON BOD UNDERSTANDING AND CRITICIZE POPE JOHN PAUL II

It’s a common error on the website of Peter and Michael Dimond. They assume that the Baptism of desire is de facto known to us in the present times. They make this error and criticize the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX). Here they assume that Pope John Paul II was wrong.

Pope John Paul II was correct there are those saved explicitly and others implicitly through Jesus and the Church.

Subject: Hi-EWTN exposed?

Hi,

Who are you ? How can you say all of these things about the church and the Pope and EWTN? It is all so shocking? Why are you saying these things?

Judy

MHFM: … Here’s just one heresy from … John Paul II. This statement denies defined Catholic dogma. Again, this is just one of many:

John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio (#10), Dec. 7, 1990: “The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church.”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, dogmatic Athanasian Creed, 1439: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity… But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ…”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence ,dogmatic Athanasian Creed is saying that everyone with no exception needs to be an explicit member of the Church to go to Heaven.

Pope John Paul too is saying that the ‘universality of salvation is granted to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church’. This is the same message as the Council of Florence.
Those saved explicitly refer to de facto cases that we can know of. Those saved implicitly refer to de jure cases that we can only accept in principle and can only know as a concept.

Since one is de facto and the other de jure it does not contradict the Principle on Non Contradiction.

So there is no contradiction between the statements of Pope John Paul II and Pope Eugene IV.

MHFM SLIPS ON BOD DEFINITION AND CRITICIZES SSPX

The Most Holy Family Monastery(MHFM) advises a young man to avoid the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) since they allege that the SSPX like the Catholic Church rejects the dogma Cantate Domino, Council of Florence on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

The young man must realize that it is the MHFM which is making an error with the baptism of desire (BOD). In its nature BOD is always unknown defacto to us, it can never be known in reality to us humans, it must be always accepted in principle ( dejure) only. It is unlike the baptism of water which is de facto and repeatable, real and visible.

So if BOD is not defacto known to it does not contradict the dogma as the sedevacantists MHFM state on their website critical of the SSPX.

SSPX

Hello, I am a 22 year old who recently started going to the TLM mass at the SSPX. I have stumbled across your videos and would like to ask you a few questions…

2.) What are your main problems with the SSPX?…

Thank you

Brian

MHFM:… 2. The SSPX believes in salvation outside the Church… The members of the SSPX also demonstrate a schismatic mentality by regarding Benedict XVI and his “hierarchy” as valid, but obstinately operating independently of them. All of that is explained in this file: The Society of St. Pius X [Link to Section]. Here are two quick examples of blatant heresy:

Fr. Schmidberger, Time Bombs of the Second Vatican Council, Angelus Press [SSPX], p. 10: “Ladies and gentlemen, it is clear that the followers of other religions can be saved under certain conditions, that is to say, if they are in invincible error.”

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, Angelus Press [SSPX], p. 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion.”– E-Exchanges on the Catholic Church and other issues, Most Holy Family Monastery
Note : the followers of other religions ‘in certain circumstances’ (Letter of the Holy Office 1949) and known only to God can be saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance. This is a probability, we accept this in principle. We do not know any such case on earth. So it does not contradict the dogma Cantate Domino or Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II.

Pope John Paul II also refers to those saved implicitly (baptism of desire, invincible ignorance etc), as taught in Mystici Corporis, Council of Trent, Vatican Council II etc. They also are saved.

We must remember that those saved implicitly can only be known to God. They can never de facto known to us as we know the baptism of water. They can never be real and known and so they do not contradict the Council of Florence. Everyone explicitly needs to enter the Church for salvation and there are no known exceptions on earth. If there are any exceptions (invincible ignorance etc) it will be known only to God.

When Archbishop Lefebvre said ‘Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.) he was referring to a probability known to God and which in its very nature is always de jure and never de facto known to us. So Archbishop Lefebvre was not denying or contradicting the dogma Cantate Domino, Council of Florence on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

The MHFM,Peter and Michael Dimond, make this common error since they assume that BOD is as visible and real as the baptism of water and so it contradicts the dogma outside the church there is no salvation.

Since they consider BOD as real and known to us, they reject BOD. This is a rejection of a teaching of the Council of Trent and is heresy.

Its a mortal sin to deny the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It is a sacrilege to receive the Eucharist in this condition- Fr. Gabrielle, priest of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate

Novus Ordo priest affirms rigorist interpretation of dogma and also Vatican Council II

An Italian priest who offered the Novus Ordo Mass in Italian today morning at the Salus Populi Romani chapel in the Basilica of St. Mary Majors, Rome, said it was a mortal sin to deny an ex cathedra dogma like the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady or extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Fr. Gabrielle said it was a sacrilege to receive the Eucharist in this condition without first going for Confession.

He was speaking with me in the sacristy after Mass and will be here for a few months. I told him I write on this subject on my blog.

The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the church there is no salvation) says everyone with no exception needs to be a formal member of the Catholic Church for salvation. He agreed this was the teaching of the dogma and of the Catholic Church. Every non Catholic needs to enter the Church for salvation.” If there is no baptism there is no salvation “,said Fr. Gabrielle.It needs to be mentioned that Catholics only give the baptism of water to adults with Catholic Faith (Ad Gentes 7).

Vatican Council II also says Fr. Gabrielle said that there can be those saved through Jesus and the Church and who may not be members of the Church. It needs to be clarified here that only God knows which non Catholics are saved through Jesus and the Church. So this does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Fr. Gabrielle had earlier during the homily spoken about St. Maria Goretti. He also mentioned in the homily that fornicators, or someone who committed a sin of impurity, should not receive the Eucharist, without going for Confession otherwise it would be a sacrilege.

So I asked him about extra ecclesiam nulla salus.He said presently there was a lot of confusion on this issue.He emphasized the necessity of the Church for the salvation of all people.

THERE IS NO BAPTISM OF DESIRE THAT WE CAN KNOW OF- Fr.George Puthoor

A Catholic priest in Rome who offers Mass in Italian affirms Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, on extra ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the church there is no salvation) pointing out that there is no baptism of desire that we can personally know of.

A Rossiminian priest from South India Fr.George Puthoor said that there is no baptism of desire that we can know of.

He was speaking with me at the Basilica Santi Ambrogio e Carlo, Via del Corso, Rome where he was to offer Holy Mass in Italian at 12 p.m on Trinity Sunday.He gave me permission to quote him.

Since the cases of non-Catholic saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance are de facto unknown to us and can only be accepted in principle it does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus he observed.

If there is no case of the baptism of desire or implicit faith that we know of then Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma Cantate Domino.

The secular media hype and those of the liberals have claimed that Lumen Gentium 16, Vatican Council II has changed church teaching with refrence to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Their claim is that every one does not have to enter the Church since there could be non Catholics saved with invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire.This is the claim of Wikipedia on the Internet, Catholic Answers and the Pontifical Universities and seminaries in Rome and abroad.They could quote Pope John Paul II on ‘silent apostasy’ in the Church, as if, they are not a part of it.

So when EWTN says everyone does not have to enter the Church to avoid Hell it is irrational. Since EWTN implies the baptism of desire is de facto known to us.

There is also no Magisterial text to support this position.

Since we do not know any case of a person saved in invincible ignorance Fr. George Puthoor is getting rid of another modernist sacred cow- the lie about a priest, Leonard Feeney.

When Fr.Leonard Feeney said that there is no baptism of desire (that we know of) he was correct. There is no de facto baptism of desire that we can know of because of the very nature of baptism of desire. It is de facto only for God and never de facto known to us.

Fr.Leonard Feeney taught: everyone needed the baptism of water (given to adults with Catholic Faith) for salvation – and there were no exceptions, de facto.

He was affirming Cantate Domino. So how could he be excommunicated for heresy?

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 refers to ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible’ teaching. The dogma Cantate Domino indicates all Jews in Boston ( and other non Catholics) need to convert into the Catholic Church to avoid Hell.

With Vatican Council II and Fr.Leonard Feeney ‘out of the way’ we are back to the centuries-old interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

The centuries old teaching of the popes and saints is affirmed by the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church 846(Outside the Church no Salvation) says all people need to enter the Church as ‘through a door’. This does not conflict with CCC846 also saying all those who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church i.e. there are those 1) saved explicitly with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water and there are those saved 2) implicitly through the baptism of desire etc. and which is known only to God.

Unlike these Catholic priests, the American sedevacantists Most Holy Family Monastery, NY, assume that the baptism of desire is known to us in the present times. They seem unaware that it can only be accepted in principle. It can only be a concept for us and real for God. So it does not contradict Cantate Domino. The sedevacantists reject the baptism of desire. This is heresy. They could be correct though, in saying that Catholic clergy, educational institutions and websites are in heresy and general apostasy on the issue of outside the church there is no salvation. .Since they deny Cantate Domino because they believe, like the sedevacantists, in a de facto baptism of deny known to us personally.

MORE LIBERAL NOVUS ORDO PRIESTS ARE ACCEPTING EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS

They see through the media deception and futile controversies when they realize that the baptism of desire can only be accepted in principle and never known de facto.

I was talking to a visiting priest a few days back, at a small church. He agreed that the baptism of desire was only known to God. We did not know any case.

We then agreed that in Vatican Council II all the objections against the dogma Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, extra ecclesiam nulla salus, were known only to God. Those in invincible ignorance (Lumen Gentium 16) were known only to God. Those saved by the Word of God were unknown to us.

The baptism of desire was dejure, accepted only in principle, since it can never be de facto for us, Fr. Leonard Feeney was correct. There is no baptism of desire or blood that we in general can know of. If someone really is a martyr only God can judge. We cannot judge. When the Church declares someone a martyr we accept it.

So with the Fr. Leonard Feeney and Vatican Council II objections removed, we are left with the centuries- old interpretation of extra eccleisam nulla salus. We come to this conclusion based on reason. This is not a new theology.

For centuries there was no controversy over baptism of desire or invincible ignorance. Since they were always understood to be implicit and did not contradict the dogma which called for explicit baptism of water, for all without exceptions.

Then the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 issued to the Archbishop of Boston by Pope Pius XII mentions ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible’ teaching. That dogma was Cantate Domino, one of three ex cathedra definitions on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

The text of Cantate Domino indicates all Jews and other non Catholic in Boston need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell. This was exactly what Fr.Leonard Feeney taught. So how could he be excommunicated for heresy? The Letter supported him on doctrine. This is contrary to the secular media propaganda.

The message of the Letter and the dogma is the same as Ad Gentes 7, Catechism of the Catholic Church 846, Dominus Iesus 20. This is Vatican Council II and Magisterial documents in accord with Cantate Domino. This has been the positive aspect of this issue.

On what seemed the negative aspect, but is not, Lumen Gentium 16 refers to invincible ignorance which does not contradict the dogma since it is not explicitly known to us.Implicit case are hidden from us.

So rationally we are back to extra ecclesiam nulla salus which the Church has not retracted in any Magisterial document. The Catechism of the Catholic Church 846 can be interpreted in accord with the dogma. CCC 846 on Outside the Church No Salvation says all need to enter the Church as through a door. This was how the Church Fathers described extra ecclesiam nulla salus. CCC’s 846’s reference to those saved implicitly through Jesus and the Church does not contradict the dogma, since we do not know a single person, saved through Jesus and the Church.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/search/label/sedevacantists