Tuesday, July 1, 2014

Those who support Fr.Leonard Feeney are still not pointing it out to all that salvation in Heaven is invisible for us

It's interesting, and sad, to see how on a Catholic traditionalist forum they infer that the baptism of desire is explicit for us.
This is false. The baptism of desire is always invisible for us.
This was the mistake of the Letter of the Holy Office.The Letter  assumed there were explicit exceptions to the the dogma on exclusive salvation.The interpretation of  Fr.Leonard Feeney.
Here are posts from the forum CathInfo. (Crisis in the Church), with my comments.-L,A
 
 
 

ON THE FEENEYITE HERESY

Leonard Feeney SJ did not invent the heresy which denies Baptism of Desire(BOD) and Baptism of Blood(BOB). It was alredy known to be a heresy propagated long before Feeney began to profess this heresy.

BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS DE FIDE

The denial of BOD was aleady known to be a heresy well before Fr. Feeney fell for this old heresy. In my reply to a Feeneyite along with its links to informative articles, you will find all you need in order to understand (except the distinction between explicit and implicit BOD will not be found ) that BOD & BOB are defined doctrines of the universal & ordinary magisterium that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith. (We can  believe in invisible for us baptism of desire or explicit for us baptism of desire)
Dear Feeneyite,

I have examined your entire exposition attempting to critique my position on Baptism of Desire. It is riddled with fallacious assumptions; such as your false attribution to me of an error on the point of necessity of precept vs. necessity of means. Another gross error you make is to equate the doctrine of Baptism of Desire, which pertains to the universal magisterium of the Church, with mere opinions that the Church has tolerated but never has taught or approved. (No one has mentioned that the  baptism of desire is always implicit for us so it is not an exception to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney, as it was known through the centuries ) 
Before the doctrine of BOD would have been explicitly and universally set forth by the ordinary magisterium, it would have been permissible to hold a contrary opinion; but that is now and for many centuries no longer the case. BOD as well as BOB (explicitly professed in the Roman Martyrology) have been definitively set forth by the universal & ordinary magisterium, and are therefore infallible and must be believed with divine and Catholic faith.(A BOD which is always known only to God and unknown to us in personal cases) It has become universally defined by the magisterium in no small part, first; because it had been taught by St. Thomas Aquinas and other medieval Doctors, secondly; because the application of the dogma of Trent to this point by St. Alphonsus has been formally approved by Gregory XVI and by Pius IX, and has been explicitly taught by Pope Pius IX and Pope Pius X in their ordinary magisterium (none of them referred to a visible to us baptism of desire). Furthermore, the 1917 Code of Canon Law prescribed as a universal statute that deceased Catechumens are to be given a Catholic burial and "are to be counted among the bapitzed" (can. 1239). ( Even if they were saved without the baptism of water these cases are not visible to us in the present times ( 2014). So they cannot be exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They are not relevant to the dogma).St. Pius X teaches that those who have been sanctified by baptism of desire are in the Church not as incorporated members, but in so far as they belong to "the soul of the Church". The basis for this teaching of St. Pius X is the doctrine of St. Robert Bellarmine who succinctly explains in what manner such catechumens are to be considered to belong to the soul of the Church. This distinction was already taught by St. Augustine. (without any reference to an explicit for us baptism of desire).
Leonard Feeney SJ was not the originator of this heresy ( it becomes a heresy when BOD is assumed to be explicit. Then of course it will contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is the position of Fr.Paul Kramer and the SSPX.). The eminent late Nineteenth Century early 20th Century theologian, Francisco Marin-Sola OP, mentions that there have already been some heretics teaching this doctrine: “Certain heretics have affirmed that no adult can be saved without receiving baptism itself before he dies, however much he would burn with desire for it, and that it would do him no good unless he were washed with water."

The precise quotations from magisterial sources are presented in the two articles indicated below which more than sufficiently demonstrate beyond all shadow of doubt that Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood are infallible definitions of the Church which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, under penalty of heresy and eternal damnation. (The articles assume wrongly that BOD and BOB refer to visible cases. Then it is further inferred that these visible cases are exceptions in the present time, for all to convert formally into the Church. It is upon this false premise, that a theology has been created.)
Fr. Paul Kramer

http://www.catholicessentials.net/baptismofdesire.htm

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm
___________________________________________________________________

On the Feeneyite heresy, Fr. Framer is an expert, and understands it very well.  

Feeneyism is one of the more dangerous modern heresies, and it must be stopes before it spreads further, and contaminates more Catholics.
(Lionel: By Feeneyism he means the rejection  of the baptism of desire ( explicit for us).
He still has no concept of an implicit  for us baptism of desire.)

 
So are we to believe Fr. Kramer or the infallible Magisterium of the Eternal Church, which cannot err since it is indeed divinely protected by the Holy Ghost?
(Lionel: The Holy Spirit throughout  the centuries has not taught  that there was explicit for us BOD and BOB. This new doctrine of explicit for us BOD and BOB originated in the 1940's in Boston).
____________________________

Fr. Kramer is merely witnessing to the infallible magisterium of the Catholic Church which has taught Baptism of Desire.  It is de fide.  Those who deny it are professing heresy.

(Lionel: Again he is referring to explicit for us baptism of desire. He does  not realize that BOD can only be implicit  for us, something hypothetical.)
_______________________

Will an honest NSAAer please step up and publicly admit that the sacraments are optional, that they are not necessary for salvation please?
(Lionel: He is correctly defending the dogma as it was taught in the  Church over the centuries by the  Holy Spirit. Perhaps he too thinks BOD is explicit for us.
He has not mentioned invisible for us BOD is not an exception  to the dogma.Those who support  Fr.Leonard Feeney are still not pointing it out to all that salvation
 in Heaven is invisible for us and so  cannot be a known case in 2014.
It cannot be an exception to the traditonal interpretation of Fr..Leonard Feeney.) 
-Lionel Andrades











   

.


 
 

 
   
 
 
 
 
                  

 

Pope Francis and the Vatican Curia want the Franciscans of the Immaculate to interpret Church documents with an irrationality : appeal for justice

Pope Francis wants the Franciscans of the Immaculate to accept the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 while assuming that the baptism of desire is explicit for us instead of implicit.
He then wants this same irrationality to be used in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
The Holy Office 1949 made an error when it assumed that implicit desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma on salvation by Fr.Leonard Feeney.
This error is carried over by the Vatican Curia in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
The Franciscans of the Immaculate have to affirm Vatican Council II while assuming that all salvation in Heaven is visible on earth. Then it has to be wrongly concluded that these 'visible' cases are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the rest of Tradition.
Could the relatives of the Sisters in the Franciscans of the Immaculate(FFI) community  bring this issue to the attention of the Vatican ?. Please ask them to allow the FFI to accept Vatican Council II and all magisterial documents without assuming salvation in Heaven is physically visible on earth.
In this way the FFI can affirm Tradition and also Vatican Council II. Please ask Pope Francis and  the Vatican Curia to first endorse a Vatican Council II without the irrational inference.Also please ask the FFI dissidents to do the same.
-Lionel Andrades



The Letter of the Holy Office makes it an issue. It considers the baptism of desire an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/07/the-letter-of-holy-office-makes-it.html#links

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/07/letter-of-holy-office-49-with.html#links

Objectively we cannot see a baptism of desire case: the Holy Office 1949 implies we can

This would be an error even if it was said by Pope Francis or Archbishop Lefebvre

http:/euchaistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/this-would-be-error-even-if-it-was-said.html


Implicit desire is always implicit. Did the Holy Office assume it was explicit?

Objectively we cannot see a baptism of desire case: the Holy Office 1949 implies we can http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/objectively-we-cannot-see-baptism-of.html

The Holy Office 1949 used the dead man walking and visible theory : it was a mistake http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/the-holy-office-1949-used-dead-man.html

 

A Catholic school boy and a Buddhist meet Archbishop Marchetto and Professor Roberto de Mattei at their next meeting

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/a-catholic-school-boy-and-buddist-meet.html

Archbishop Lefebvre made a mistake with the Letter of the Holy Office and carried it over into Vatican Council II http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/archbishop-lefebvre-made-mistake-with.html

The SSPX teaches that the baptism of desire ( explicit for us) is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/07/the-sspx-teaches-that-baptism-of-desire.html#links

Modernists in Rome and the SSPX are in agreement

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/07/modernists-in-rome-and-sspx-are-in.html#links

Martrydom is not a known exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus in 2014

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/07/martrydom-is-not-known-exception-to.html#links

Invisible persons cannot be an exception on earth to Fr.Leonard Feeney saying every one needs the baptism of water for salvation

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/invisible-persons-cannot-be-exception.html

I accept implicit baptism of desire according to Vatican Council II, Mystici Corporis etc http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/i-accept-implicit-baptism-of-desire.html

Even if there were many cases of persons saved with the baptism of desire ( without the baptism of water) it would be irrelevant to extra ecclesiam nulla salus

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/even-if-there-were-many-cases-of.html

We do not know any potential St.Emerentiana or St.Victor so there is only one way of salvation in the Catholic Church in 2014

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/you-do-not-know-any-potential.html

Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church : no contradiction

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/catechism-of-catholic-church-affirms.html

If someone has justification God will provide the means for the baptism of water

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/if-someone-has-justification-god-will.html
Modernists in Rome and the SSPX in agreement: 1949 Holy Office Letter teaches Modernist version of EENS - CathInfo. forum

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/modernists-in-rome-and-sspx-in.html
 
No one is saved without the baptism of water given to adults with Catholic Faith

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/no-one-is-saved-without-baptism-of.html

You can witness a martyrdom but cannot say the person is a martyr and is in Heaven without the baptism of water

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/you-can-witness-martyrdom-but-cannot.html

Fault is with the SSPX Resistance.They have used the irrational premise

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/fault-is-with-sspx-resistancethey-have.html

Hypothetical cases cannot be exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was interpreted over the centuries

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/hypothetical-cases-cannot-be-exceptions.html

Where is the actual case of someone saved outside the Church ? There is none http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/where-is-actual-case-of-someone-saved.html

Supporters of Fr.Leonard Feeney unfortunately still use the irrational inference .It can be seen in their interpretation of Vatican Council II

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/supporters-of-frleonard-feeney.html

Priests who offer Holy Mass in the vernacular now affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus : SSPX, Fr.Paul Kramer deny it

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/priests-who-offer-holy-mass-in.html

I talk in terms of visible and invisible only because Catholics in general are unaware that they are using these terms

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/i-talk-in-terms-of-visible-and.html








The SSPX teaches that the baptism of desire ( explicit for us) is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus

All the followers of Father Feeney, as did Father himself, hold that Saint Thomas was in error for teaching Baptism of Desire;
Lionel:
An explicit- for- us baptism of desire is error.
 
St.Thomas Aquinas did not say that the man in the forest in invincible ignorance was a visible and known case and so was an exception to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus which he held i.e there are no exceptions.
The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the community of Fr.Leonard Feeney, accept a baptism of desire followed by a baptism of water.They cite the conditions for the baptism of desire. So they do not reject the baptism of desire.It still is invisible for us and so is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The SSPX rejects this. Baptism of Desire is relevant in that it has been universally taught by the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. It is not an "exception," visible or otherwise.
Lionel:
So you are saying that the baptism of desire ( implicit for us) is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
And you agree that the SSPX teaches that the baptism of desire ( explicit for us) is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus?
-Lionel Andrades

The Letter of the Holy Office makes it an issue. It considers the baptism of desire an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Baptism of Desire, even if such is visible (say, in the case of a martyr) is not an exception to EENS. One would have died with the grace of Baptism but not its character. Why is this an issue?
Lionel:
The Letter of the Holy Office makes it an issue. It considers the baptism of desire an exception to the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX make it an issue when they conside the baptism of desire as explicit, visible and so an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
-Lionel Andrades

Has the SSPX committed a mistake when it considers the baptism of desire as being relevant to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney?

 
think that you are "pounding on open doors", at least to an extent:
Salvation is never visible to us, whether with or without Sacramental Baptism.
Lionel:
So then is the baptism of desire which refers to salvation in Heaven an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, when there are no visible cases on earth?
Is it relevant to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney?
Has the SSPX committed a mistake when it considers the baptism of desire as being relevant to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney?
 
Agreed? However, you need to differentiate between a moral certitude and an absolute one. It is easy to imagine a situation of a convert from Islam, who, to a moral certitude, we can say was never baptized, but upon conversion to the One True Faith, was killed confessing the Name of Jesus Christ. To a moral certitude, we can say that person went to Heaven, even without sacramental Baptism.
Lionel:
Would this case be an exception the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney ?
That is what the SSPX teaches and believes.
Lionel:
Does the SSPX teach that the baptism of desire being not visible to us in real life is not an exception to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney?- Lionel Andrades

Letter of the Holy Office '49 with the irrational inference is rejected : Vatican Council II without the false premise is accepted

I reject the Letter of the Holy Office 1949's irrational inference . I affirm Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Mystici Corporis etc without the irrational inference.I accept the parts of the Letter of the Holy Office which support Fr.Leonard Feeney on doctrine.
I do not claim to be able to see the dead. I believe people in general cannot see the dead-saved on earth.
For me being saved in invincible ignorance, the baptism of desire, a ray of the Truth etc are always implicit, invisible and never seen in the flesh.
For the Holy Office 1949 implicit desire , invincible ignorance etc were explicit ,objectively seen.So they were explicit exceptions to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.Only if they are seen and known can they be exceptions.
 
In Vatican Council II, Mystici Corporis etc these cases (invincible ignorance) are just mentioned per se.It is not stated in the text that they are explicit for us .Neither is it said that they are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.One can rationally infer that implicit desire etc is known only to God and is invisible for us in real life.So I accept them as possibilities.I accept them as hypothetical , theoretical possibilities.They are always hypothetical cases.I cannot choose to consider them as anything else.One cannot choose to consider them explicit since they are not explicit.
Hypothetical cases cannot be exceptions to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney which says all need to convert into the Church with the baptism of water and Catholic Faith.All need to be formal members of the Church for salvation.
Hypothetical cases cannot be considered visible exceptions.Hypothetical cases are not cases of known salvation outside the Church.I do not know any such person-saved in 2014.
So I accept implicit for us baptism of desire and reject explicit for us baptism of desire.
 
 
I reject the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 inferring that these cases are objective exceptions to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.These cases are not relevant to his traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Fr.Leonard Feeney was not obligated to say he could see or know persons saved outside the Church. There are no such cases.
 
I accept Vatican Council II without the inference and reject the Holy Office Letter 1949 when it makes the inference of the dead-saved being visible and  who are exceptions to the traditional dogma.
 
SSPX, SEDEVACANTISTS
 
The 'modernists in Rome' accept Vatican Council II and the Holy Office Letter with the inference.The SSPX accepts the Holy Office Letter with the inference. They reject Vatican Council II with the inference.They are not aware of a possible Vatican Council II without the inference.
 
 
The sedevacantists Congregatio Mariae Reginae Immaculatae CMRI,   accept the Holy Office 1949 Letter with the irrational inference and reject Vatican Council II with that same irrational inference.They are not aware of the connectiion between the Letter of the Holy Office and Vatican Council II with the use of the irrational inference.
This is all the confusion in the Church.
-Lionel Andrades
____________________________________________
 
 Note : LG 16 in 'Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience' does not state that these caes are physically visible to us in real life or that they are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The text does not state this.
16. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126); But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.(129) Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature",(130) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.-Lumen Gentium 16,Vatican Council II
 
 
Note: Here again the text does not state that invincible ignorance is objectively seen or that it is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, 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 Conficiamur Moerore - Pope Pius IX    

Modernists in Rome and the SSPX are in agreement.

'Modernists in Rome' and SSPX agree baptism of desire is not implicit but explicit for us
The 'modernists in Rome' have the same position on the baptism of desire as the Society of St.Pius X( SSPX).Both groups consider the baptism of desire as explicit instead of implicit for us. The 'modernists in Rome' ( to use an SSPX term) along with Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay have the same position on ' a ray of Truth'(Nostra Aetate 2) .They consider a person being saved with ' a ray of the Truth' as not being invisible for us but objectively seen in real life.
 So for the modernists, using this irrationality, there are explicit exceptions to 
 extra ecclesia nulla salus.
-Lionel Andrades
______________________________________

Martrydom is not a known exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus in 2014

So, you're claiming that it is impossible for us to witness the martyrdom, even to a moral certitude, of a true Catholic catechumen, that is, someone who ended their live without sacramental Baptism?
 
Lionel:
We can witness someone being killed for his Catholic Faith. We can believe he is a martyr.Whether he finally is a matryr, in individual cases only God can decide.We cannot know.
 
Here the issue is can a martyr who has died without the baptism of water be an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma on salvation according to Fr.Leonard Feeney ? Can this dead person be an exception to all needing faith and baptism for salvation in 2014? Can this case of martyrdom without the Sacrament of Baptism be an exception which is known to us?
Do you know any such case during your entire life ?
Is this case relevant to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
No! It is not relevant since it is not visible to us ; it is not known to us in the present times.What does not exist in our reality, however good it is theoretically, can not be an exception. It can be an event, a happening, a possibility but not an exception.
-Lionel Andrades

Pope Francis says outside the Church there is no salvation -Michael Voris

Hobby Lobby in Pictures: Americans Cheer and Thank God After SCOTUS Victory

by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 6/30/14 

The Supreme Court gave the pro-life movement a huge victory today. It determined the Obama administration couldn’t force Hobby Lobby and any other company or business that doesn’t want to pay for abortion-causing drugs or birth control for its employees to obey the HHS mandate forcing it to do so.
Before and after the decision, pro-life advocates flooded the steps of the Supreme Court building with signs and pictures and led chants as the justices were preparing to hand down their decision. Afterwards, they cried tears of joy, cheered and prayed to thank God for the decision.
Some pro-life activists gathered at local Hobby Lobby stores to celebrate. Here is a collection of pictures from Students for Life of America, Concerned Women for America, the Susan B. Anthony List, March for Life and others…
scotushobbylobby11




scotushobbylobby12




scotushobbylobby13




scotushobbylobby14



scotushobbylobby15


scotushobbylobby


scotushobbylobby3


scotushobbylobby4


scotushobbylobby5


scotushobbylobby6


scotushobbylobby7


scotushobbylobby8


scotushobbylobby10