Thursday, March 17, 2011

Cincinnati priest didn't like my letter

Well, it seems someone mentioned me in a letter to the latest Catholic Telegraph:

Editor:

How sad that Father Martin Fox missed the whole point of Mr. Daley's well-written column (Letters, March 4). In its concern for ecumenical dialogue as well as relationships with non-Christian religions, the Second Vatican Council made bold steps toward eradicating centuries of hostility. The documents from this Council clearly indicate a broad interpretation of the formulary of St. Cyprian: extra ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the church there is no salvation).

In his opening remarks, Mr. Daley cited this phrase with the explanation that a very narrow interpretation had dominated Catholic thinking for many centuries. Such thinking hindered any kind of dialogue with other Christians, much less non-Christians.

However, a broader understanding of this phrase was enunciated in a letter from the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston in 1949, which became the foundation for further exploration in the Second Vatican Council. That "open door" led to fruitful discussions and relationships with other denominations and religions.

While there is not sufficient space here for a more detailed discussion, Mr. Daley's use of the the phrase was most appropriate. And he was right on the mark by noting that the Catholic Church has taken a leading role in promoting interreligious dialogue. This, too, is one of the things that keeps me Catholic.

Father Raymond C. Kellerman
Holy Trinity Parish, Norwood

OK; here's the letter I wrote:

Editor:

Michael Daley, a religion teacher at St. Xavier High School, began his article in the Feb. 25 edition of the Telegraph with the phrase Extra ecclesiam nulla salus — outside the church there is no salvation.

In the column that followed, it did not seem to me that he explained what this means to us as we continue to teach this as a doctrine of our church — which we do. Yet without further explanation, it certainly gives rise to confusion.

So what do we mean when we say that? “Outside the church” refers to the Body of Christ understood in its fullest sense. We don’t know how many will be saved ultimately. We hope for vast numbers, but we don’t assume it will be everyone. But whoever is ultimately saved will be members of the Catholic Church in eternity, whether or not they are full members in this life.

In this sense, no one who is saved will be “outside” —salvation means they are “inside.” This is our hope for those who never hear about Jesus in this life, as well as those who, while not receiving actual baptism, may share a “baptism of desire” or “of blood.”

Likewise, reason tells us that if someone rejects Christianity — or the Catholic Church in particular — because of misinformation, then Christ knows the difference between that, and someone who rejects the truth, yet knowing it to be true.

Here is what Vatican II said: “This Sacred Council...teaches that the church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His body, which is the church, is the one mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved” (Lumen Gentium 14).

Whoever is saved, can only be saved through the merits of Christ, and will be united with Him. No one can be united to the head, yet not part of the body: so those who will be saved will indeed be, not “outside,” but “inside” the church.

The question remains, does it matter whether we are full members of the church in this life? Certainly. Baptism matters. The sacraments are powerful helps to salvation, as is the teaching office (i.e., magisterium) of the church. More help is more help. God acts in the lives of those not full members of the Catholic Church, and He knows their hearts.

Having the fullness of the Catholic faith isn’t a golden ticket for Catholics; it makes us more accountable. But it would be dangerous to think, “Oh it doesn’t matter, I’ll get to heaven somehow.”

Seeking Christ in His church is a wiser course.

Father Martin Fox, pastor
St. Mary and St. Boniface parishes
Piqua


(If you want to see the original article, go here.)

OK, well, let me offer these comments:

> I didn't miss the point of the original article; I didn't address it all. I simply observed that the author didn't really address the meaning of the "extra ecclesiam" doctrine. I think that's a statement of simple fact.

> I am certainly aware of what the Second Vatican Council had to say, as I quoted it.

> It could be that Father Kellerman thinks I was finding fault with Mr. Daley's column. Well, re-read my letter and please show me where I criticized Mr. Daley's essay? I suppose the very fact that I wrote the letter seems an implied criticism--i.e, that Mr. Daley ought to have explained the doctrine. Well, OK, maybe he should have, or else handled it differently. But columns need to be brief, so adding such explanations are hard to do and I don't blame Mr. Daley for not explaining it. And if my letter didn't need to be brief, I might have said as much when I wrote the Telegraph.

> In any case, the question of Church teaching on salvation "outside" the Church does often gives rise to misunderstanding. Or so I have found; perhaps Father Kellerman has had a different experience. I offered some clarity, which as far as I can tell, Father Kellerman finds no fault with.

> I'm sorry to hear Father Kellerman is sad. I hope he cheers up!

21 comments:

Trey said...

Father Fox,

Your original letter as well as your follow up are very charitable in tone as well as educational in nature. Your simply trying to shed some light and clarificaiton on a subject that is easily misconstrued

Thank you for the time and energy you spend in these type of teachable moments, we are most grateful

Andrew said...

Keep up the good work, Father! There will always be those who disagree, but those are slowly falling into the minority. God bless!

Gail F said...

HI Father -- Are you a Neo-Cath? You have to watch out for them, you know... or so I have been told. Sadly, I don't know who/what they are and so I have to stick to the plain old Church, like you do. I appreciate your thorough and charitable letter.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Gail:

That "neo-Cath" terminology is interesting, I think this is what's going on with that...

In politics, for some time we've had the terms "conservative" and "neo-conservative." Along the way, there were conservative folks who looked with growing suspicion at the "neos"; the reasons for that aren't necessary to go into, but it boiled down to two concerns:

1) "neo conservatives" aren't really conservatives when it counts, and

2) these "neos" are hijacking the movement and wrecking it.

So one response was for folks to label themselves "paleo conservatives"...and so forth.

OK, so here's what I find interesting. Folks are taking these political, ideological terms--which have their place--and imposing them onto the Church.

And I find that interesting; and offensive.

I worked in politics, and it took me awhile, in making the move to the seminary and then the parish, to sort out in my own mind what pertained, and what didn't. And here's one of my insights.

Politics necessarily and properly involves creating division. There are choices to be made, different plans and visions, and it serves the public to clarify where folks stand so they can choose. Of course we all want to be unified as Americans; but it doesn't serve the public interest to muddy up the differences that are there.

The fact is, an essential element (not the only element) of politics is that it is a civilized substitute for warfare. Politics involves the acquisition of power; and either that is done through force (we call that war), or through rules that everyone agrees to as "fair." Still, when someone wins, s/he gets to use that power to do things that the losers have to go along with.

But the Church is not like that!

Christ did not send us, saying, make sure you sort out the purest sheep and send away the impure; that parable is nowhere to be found. He reserves that to Himself (Matthew 24). What he told us--especially pastors--was the parable of the lost sheep: the one who wanders away.

So I have to question someone who tries to fit the Church into the Procrustean Bed of ideological combat. I think folks who approach it that way should some soul-searching. Are they really about the Church, herself; or are they about an ideological vision that they wish to reshape the Church to match? I might point out that this problem exists among those who are labeled "progressive," and you can see it on display almost daily at the National Catholic Reporter. And what I think has happened is some folks have reacted to that by being similarly political, but in opposition. Wrong answer, in my opinion.

Anonymous said...

I think "neo-cath actually refers to The Neocatechumenal Way.

Fr. Larry Gearhart said...

Anonymous: why wouldn't they be called "neo-cats?"

I gather from the Wikipedia article on "Neo-Catholicism" that the term was invented by traditionalists to refer to "Spirit of Vatican II" blokes. I don't take Fr. Martin to be either.


Hey, Martin. I would have described the problem this way: (1) Ignorance, especially invincible ignorance, is a valid excuse; (2) Failure to cooperate with the truth received by us will get us into trouble.

I have no idea why Fr. Kellerman didn't take kindly to your remarks.

Personally, I like what you said about eschatological membership in the Church.

David L Alexander said...

Father:

Keep it up.

DLA

Catholic Mission said...

FR. FRANCESCO GIORDANO AFFIRMS CANTATE DOMINO, COUNCIL OF FLORENCE
The Italian diocesan priest Fr. Francesco Giordano studying at the Holy Cross University, Rome and working for his doctorate on the subject extra ecclesiam nulla salus says he affirms the dogma Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441.The ex cathedra dogma says all non Catholics, specifying, Jews, Protestants and Orthodox Christians needing to formally enter the Catholic Church to avoid Hell, which has fire.

One can affirm Cantate Domino which indicates everyone with no exception, de facto needs to enter the Church and, at the same time believe de jure; in principle, a non Catholic can be saved implicitly (baptism of desire etc) and it would be known only to God.

However Fr. Giordano’s position on 1) Fr. Leonard Feeney and 2) Lumen Gentium 16, Vatican Council II is not clear. He seems to contradict the dogma on these two points. Though, he told me at the Church Santa Maria di Nazareth, Boccea, Rome that he affirms Cantate Domino.


Fr. Giordano, who has studied at the University of Chicago, is a young priest fluent in English and Italian. He received his Licentiate from the University of St. Thomas Aquinas, Rome and the subject of his thesis there was outside the church there is no salvation.

Like St. Thomas Aquinas if one uses the defacto-dejure analysis it is possible to hold the ‘rigorist interpretation’ of the dogma and also affirm the baptism of desire (Council of Trent) and so not be considered a heretic. It does not have to be an either-or position i.e. the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or the baptism of desire.


Fr. Giordano believes Cantate Domino is compatible with Vatican Council II, Catechism of the Catholic Church and other Magisterial documents.

CONTINUED
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/06/fr-franccesco-giordano-affirms-cantate.html#links

Catholic Mission said...

Father Leonard Feeney was not excommunicated for heresy: No Tridentine Rite Mass without Outside the Church There is No Salvation (Extra ecclesiam nulla salus)


If there is an objection that Fr. Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for affirming extra ecclesiam nulla salus, this is a falsehood. The 'dogma' referred to in the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston 1949 indicates that all Jews in Boston need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell.
Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.


However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church…-Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston (Emphasis added).


Here is the text of the dogma.


“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. Ex cathedra – from the website Catholicism.org




So the Letter of the Holy Office referring to the 'dogma' supported Fr. Leonard Feeney on doctrine. The dogma (Cantate Domino) indicates all Jews in Boston need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell. This was exactly what Fr. Leonard Feeney taught.

There is no Church document which says that Fr. Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for heresy. There is no also no Church document which says that the Church has retracted extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The Church still upholds the dogma.

CONTINUED

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/06/father-leonard-feeney-was-not.html

Catholic Mission said...

CONTINUED

The diocese of Manchester, USA recently appointed a chaplain for the St. Benedict Centre, Richmond, New Hampshire and approved their chapel. The diocese of Worcester has granted canonical status to the St. Benedict’s Abbey monks and the Sisters of St. Benedict Center and the community in Still River, Massachusetts, St. Anns House. The Abbey was recognized as early as 1988 with the approval of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.All these communities inspired by Fr. Leonard Feeney uphold the ex cathedra dogma outside the church there is no salvation which is in accord with Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church 845, 846, Dominus Iesus 20 and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 issued during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII. They hold what the secular media calls 'the rigorist interpretation' of the dogma.


Their recognition by the diocese was also formally approved by Ecclesia Dei, Vatican since they use the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, permitted by the moto proprio Summorum Pontificium.The Tridentine Rite Mass, the Mass of the popes and saints.


Pius XII was saying in the Letter of the Holy Office all Jews in Boston need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water to avoid Hell. (1) The Letter (Haec Suprema) issued by Cardinal Ottaviani supported Fr. Feeney on doctrine and criticized him for being disobedient to the Archbishop of Boston, whom it was believed then, was faithful to the Church on doctrine. The first part of the Letter referred to doctrine/dogma and the second part to discipline/disobedience.


There is no Magisterial document which states that Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for heresy. The Letter of the Holy Office included in the Denzinger–Enchiridion refers to only ‘disobedience’. The Letter really supported Fr. Leonard Feeney with ‘the dogma’ it needs to be repeated. So it is factually incorrect to say the priest was excommunicated for heresy


There is no explicit or implicit Baptism of Desire that we know of and it is only explicit for God. The ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus clearly says everyone must be a VISIBLE; FORMAL member of the Catholic Church to go to Heaven and avoid Hell and there are no exceptions. The Jewish Left media created the phrase Boston Heresy Case and refer to a rigorist and non rigorist interpretation, as if there can be two interpretations of an infallible teaching . The rigorist interpretation is in accord with the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (845,846)


When Fr. Leonard Feeney and his communities say there is no baptism of desire they mean that there is no baptism of desire defacto or de jure (in principle) that we can know of. None of us knows any case of a person saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance.


The communities of Fr. Leonard Feeney in the USA accept the baptism of desire as a concept; as a possibility, in ‘certain circumstances’ (Letter of the Holy Office 1949). They have also provided a definition of the baptism of desire with its conditions on their website (Catholicism.org).


So it is false for a priest offering the Tridentine Rite Mass to reject the dogma Cantate Domino as it was known for centuries, claiming, that Fr. Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for affirming this very dogma.


There can be no Tridentine Rite Mass without extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

-Lionel Andrades
E-mail:lionelandrades10@gmail.com

Catholic Mission said...

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

Second Catholic priest in Rome affirms Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, on extra ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the church there is no salvation)

A second priest in Rom within a few weeks affirms Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 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 yesterday, Sunday morning, 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 on this blog.

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.
CONTINUED

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/06/there-is-no-baptism-of-desire-that-we.html#links

Catholic Mission said...

CONTINUED
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 intrpretation 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.


Fr. George Puthoor is the second Catholic priest in Rome who within a few weeks has affirmed Cantate Domino, which the Church has not retracted through any Magisterial document.. Earlier Fr. Francesco Giordano an Italian diocesan priest said the same.

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.
-Lionel Andrades

Catholic Mission said...

Question: OK so are you saying that anyone who is not Catholic is going to Hell?

Lionel: Do you mean de facto or hypothetically?

De facto everyone on earth needs to be a Catholic, with Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water to go to Heaven and avoid Hell. (Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II etc).

Hypothetically; as a concept, in principle, a person can be saved with implicit salvation (baptism of desire etc) and it will be known only to God.

De facto we do not know any case of a person saved with the baptism of desire etc.

So are you saying that anyone who is not Catholic is going to Hell?

De facto; in reality, when I meet a non Catholic, I know he is oriented to Hell unless he converts into the Catholic Church.

De jure (in principle), a person can be saved in invincible ignorance etc and it would be known only to God.
-Lionel Andrades
E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com

Catholic Mission said...

Friday, October 7, 2011
LEGIONARY OF CHRIST PRIEST FR.RAFAEL PASCUAL AFFIRMS CANTATE DOMINO, COUNCIL OF FLORENCE
Dean of the Faculty of Philosophy, University Pontifical Regina Apostolorum, Rome in his office today morning said he was familiar with the text of the dogma Cantate Domino and he would endorse it in public.

Fr. Rafael Pascual said he and other Legionaries of Christ priests took an oath in Church to be faithful to the Magisterium of the Church and he showed me on his computer the text of this oath.


He took exception to a report (1) I e-mailed him which indicated that the Legionaries of Christ priests have not affirmed the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.


Fr. Pascual who is the Director of the Master of Science and Faith Institute knew that the dogma on extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Cantate Domino (2) was in accord with Vatican Council II (LG 14,AG 7) (3), Dominus Iesus 20 (4) and other Magisterial text.
CONTINUED

Catholic Mission said...

CONTINUED
The Church also affirms it may be mentioned that non Catholics can be saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. However the Church Fathers, popes and Councils always new that these cases were implicit and so did not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They are only known to God and we would not meet any such case in person. Also no Magisterial text claims that they are explicitly known to us. -Lionel Andrades

1.


LEGIONARIES OF CHRIST PRIESTS IN ROME DO NOT DENY THAT THEY AFFIRM AND TEACH THE SECULAR, LIBERAL INTERPRETATION OF EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA
SALUS
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2010/12/legionaries-of-christ-priests-in-rome.html#links

2.


Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino (1441): "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" (Matthew 25:41), 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."-, Wikipedia, extra ecclesiam nulla salus


3.


Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church.-Lumen Gentium 14

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


4.


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
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/10/legionary-of-christ-priest-frrafael.html#links

Catholic Mission said...

Saturday, October 15, 2011
CATHOLIC CULTURE REJECTS VATICAN COUNCIL II, DENIES DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS AND ASKS FOR DONATIONS
To knowingly reject an infallible teaching is a mortal sin. Catholics who donate would not have to go for Confession?


The President of Catholic Culture Jeffrey Mirus will not affirm the dogma Cantate Domino ,Council of Florence and neither will be affirm Vatican Council II in accord with the dogma.(1)Catholic priests in Rome who offer the Novus Ordo Mass in Italian have endorsed Cantate Domino and Vatican Council II and other Magisterial documents in agreement with the dogma(2).

Jeffrey Mirus is also contradicted by Catholic priests here who say there is no case of the baptism of desire known to us(3).To reject the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus claiming it is contradicted by those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire is heresy.


He misinterprets Vatican Council II and misleads Catholics with the report on the Internet 'Tragic Errors of Fr.Leonard Feeney'.- Lionel Andrades
___________________________________
CONTINUED

Catholic Mission said...

CONTINUED
1.
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2011

CATHOLIC CULTURE PROVIDES A DEFINITION OF EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/10/catholic-culture-provides-definition-of.html

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2011
Catholic Culture suggests those who know about the Church and yet do not enter is the only ordinary means of salvation and these cases are known to us
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/10/catholic-culture-suggests-those-who.html

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2011
CATHOLIC CULTURE SUGGESTS THOSE SAVED IN INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE OR THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE ARE EXPLICITLY KNOWN
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/10/catholic-culture-suggests-that-those.html

Trinity Communications of Jeff Mirus and Catholic Culture is a legal entity that is spreading falsehood about the Catholic Faith.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/09/trinity-communications-is-legal-entity.html

2.

Friday, October 7, 2011
LEGIONARY OF CHRIST PRIEST FR.RAFAEL PASCUAL AFFIRMS CANTATE DOMINO, COUNCIL OF FLORENCE

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/10/legionary-of-christ-priest-frrafael.html

TUESDAY, AUGUST 9, 2011
FR.TULLIO ROTONDO AFFIRMS CANTATE DOMINO, COUNCIL OF FLORENCE ON EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/08/frtullio-rotondo-affirms-cantate-domino.html#links

WEDNESDAY, JULY 20, 2011
CANTATE DOMINO, COUNCIL OF FLORENCE ON EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS IS DE FIDE AND NOT CONTRADICTED BY VATICAN COUNCIL II- Fr. Nevus Marcello O.P
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/07/cantate-domino-council-of-florence-on.html

SATURDAY, JULY 16, 2011
BRAZILIAN PRIEST SAYS VATICAN COUNCIL II DOES NOT CONTRADICT DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/07/brazilian-priest-says-vatican-council.html#links


3.

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

CATHOLIC PRIESTS IN ROME AGREE WITH FR.LEONARD FEENEY: THERE IS NO BAPTISM OF DESIRE THAT WE CAN KNOW OF
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/08/catholic-priests-in-rome-agree-with.html#links



http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/10/catholic-culture-rejects-vatican.html

Catholic Mission said...

Friday, December 23, 2011
DID THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949 CONTRADICT THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS? NO
The Letter of the Holy Office only mentions the baptism of desire as did the Council of Trent. It does not say that the baptism of desire is explicitly known to us. It did not say that it was an exception to the dogma. Neither does the Council of Trent make this claim.

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

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

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

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

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

For example:

De facto-dejure model

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

Defacto-defacto model

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

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

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

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

CONTINUED

Catholic Mission said...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTIUED

Catholic Mission said...

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

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

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

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

The article it refers to was written by Raymond Karam and not Fr.Leonard Feeney. Karam defended the dogma without using the defacto-dejure clarification. Neither did the Holy Office and the Archbishop mention this reasoning which avoids contradicting the Principle of Non Contradiction. So it is possible that all the persons in the controversy were talking across to each other. There was confusion.
"From these declarations which pertain to doctrine it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a “Defender of the Faith,” and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities..."

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/12/did-letter-of-holy-office-1949.html#links

Catholic Mission said...

Tuesday, May 1, 2012
IF THEY EXCOMMUNICATED FR.LEONARD FEENEY FOR SAYING THAT THERE WAS NO BAPTISM OF DESIRE THEN THEY MADE A MISTAKE.THERE ARE NO KNOWN EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOGMA.
An injustice was done to the priest and St.Benedict Center

The secular media and the liberals say Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for heresy. The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 does not say it was for heresy but for disobedience.Pope Pius XII in the Letter supported Fr.Leonad Feeney on doctrine.He was excommunicated for disobedience. He refused to go to Rome when summoned.He was also being opposed by the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston Richard Cushing.

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 supported Fr.Leonard Feeney when it referred to ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible’statement.(1) The text of the dogma is a literal interpretation of the thrice defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The dogma does not mention any explicit exception. So this was exactly what was taught by Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.

Some passages in the Letter however are critical of Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.(2) So if it was assumed that the baptism of desire etc was an explicit exception to the dogma then they were mistaken.There are no known cases of people saved with the baptism of desire etc. To claim so would be an objective,factual oversight.

The Letter of the Holy Office does not directly claim that those saved in invincible ignorance etc are explicit exceptions to the dogma or that we can know these cases. This was the error of the Archbishop of Boston and the media which supported him.

The Letter which was addresed to the Archbishop had technical irregularities and so could also have been a bishop-to-bishop document.It was hastily placed in the Denzinger by the liberals.

The communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney today, recognized by the Catholic Church, know there are no exceptions to the dogma. This is common sense.

So if Fr.Leonard Feeney rejected the baptism of desire etc for whatever reason it is irrelevant. The baptism of desire etc is not issue with reference to the dogma.

For centuries the Church upheld the literal interpretation of the dogma alongwith implicit baptism of desire known ,of course, only to God.

It was Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits who created this false issue, that of the visible- to- us baptism of desire.

So we are back to the centuries old interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance out of the way, as exceptions.

continued

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/05/if-they-excommunicated-frleonard-feeney.html