Saturday, September 13, 2014

It is being implied in Suprema Haec that there are three or more known baptisms: water, desire, blood etc- Cantarella, CathInfo.forum


Avatar

Cantarella 
Level 4

This letter of 1949 claims that there are known exceptions to the EENS dogma which has been defined by three Church Councils. The known exceptions are supposed to be the souls who die "invincible ignorant" of the True Faith and are saved through subjective and ambiguous "implicit desire via last minute BOD". 


This letter is also a straighforward and blant rejection of the Nicene Creed "I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin" which refers to water Baptism only, the sacrament that has been revealed by God Himself. It is being implied in Suprema Haec that there are three or more known baptisms: water, desire, blood etc. Unfortunately, Vatican II curia - Novus Ordo, sedevacantists such as CMRI, and even SSPX priests such as Fr.Francois Laisney are guilty of the same faulty reasoning. 

It seems that that the "traditionalists" can only point out to the errors in Vatican II but cannot really provide an alternative since they act unaware of the Cushing Heresy (invincible ignorance -> denial of EENS) which is the cause of those errors. 

Thank be to God, Saint Benedict Center is not closed but far from. The crusade for the defense of the EENS dogma and the conversion of America is most alive and thriving. SBC was granted canonical status by the Church and is in full communion with Eternal Rome. 

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=33174&min=9&num=3  Suprema Haec

Boston College used an irrational premise to remove Catholic professors including Dr.Maluf whose daughters are American religious sisters


Br. Francis Maluf, M.I.C.M.
On April 13, 1949, Fr. Keleher (the President of Boston College) fired Dr. Maluf, James R. Walsh and Charles Ewaskio from the faculty at Boston College for accusing the school of heresy against the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation. In his April 14 statement to the press explaining the reason behind their dismissal, Fr. Keleher 

stated: 

“They continued to speak in class and out of class on matters contrary to the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church, ideas leading to bigotry and intolerance. Their doctrine is erroneous and as such could not be tolerated at Boston College. They were informed that they must cease such teaching or leave the faculty.” 

One cannot help but notice Fr. Keleher’s double-tongue: these men were dismissed for ideas leading to intolerance, which could not be tolerated. If intolerance is the false doctrine here, as Fr. Keleher indicates, then he is condemned by his own mouth. 

Furthermore, one cannot pass over Fr. Keleher’s brazen assertion that “Their doctrine [i.e., the solemnly defined dogma that those who die as non-Catholics cannot be saved] is erroneous.” By this statement Keleher is asserting that the Church’s doctrine (on no salvation outside the Church) is erroneous and in no way his own. 
This was the type of heretical, anti-Catholic character in league with Archbishop Richard Cushing in the quest to crush Fr. Feeney’s preaching of the dogma. 


This was the beginning of the end, so to speak, as can be seen when we one looks at what has resulted in Boston as a result of their selling out of the dogma    Outside the Church There is No Salvation. 
http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?a=topic&t=25108&min=0&num=3

Lionel:
Fr. Keleher (the President of Boston College) fired Dr. Maluf, James R. Walsh and Charles Ewaskio from the faculty at Boston College for accusing the school of heresy against the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation.
They were fired since they held the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus while Fr.Keheler and the Jesuits were saying there were exceptions. They were implying that there were known, visible cases for them to be exceptions. So they were fired for not saying that they could see the dead who  were saved with the baptism of desire etc 
This is heresy and irrationality.
Dr.Maluf (Bro.Francis Maluf MICM) expired a few years back and his daughters  are religious sisters in the community the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary at the St.Benedict Center ,Richmond, N.H,USA.
Their father lost his job as a professor at Boston College ,which now claims it is an equal opportunity employer.He was removed for his Catholic beliefs by the Jesuits.Fr.Keheler was using an irrational premise in the interpretation of the dogma .He was assuming that the dead-saved are visible to us on earth . Then he concluded that these deceased were exceptions to the dogma according to Bro.Francis.
This was an error of Fr.Keleher the President  of Boston College.It was an objective error. There are no known exceptions.
I wish his daughters could bring make this known to the present Rector of Boston College and the Archbishop of Boston.This was an injustice done to their father based on an irrationality, an un-truth.
-Lionel Andrades


http://catholicism.org/author/brfrancismaluf


Letter of the Holy Office 1949 presents a theology of the baptism of desire when there is no known case in existence

Bishop George Hay, Orestes Brownson and Fr. Mueller teach Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood. They also believe EENS is a dogma without exceptions. 

Lionel:
We have to distinguish between visible and invisible baptism of desire. If they accept that the baptism of desire is invisible for us then they can also affirm the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

If they assume that the baptism of desire is visible in the flesh; that we personally know these cases in real life, then the baptism of desire would be an exception to all needing the baptism of water in the Catholic Church for salvation.
So do Bishop George ,Orestes Brown and Fr.Mueller distinguish between invisible and visible, hypothetical and explicit for us baptism of desire ?

Cushingism implies that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. He inferred that these cases were visible, for them to be exceptions.

We also see the Letter of the Holy Ofice 1949 presenting a theology of the baptism of desire when there is no known case in existence. Hypothetical cases cannot be exceptions to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.

Similarly Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance) cannot be an exception to the Feeneyite aspect of Vatican Council II, which says all need faith and baptism, for salvation.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257 made an error when in reference to the Necessity of Baptism it mentioned that 'God is not limited to the Sacraments'.Here it is being implied that those saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance are exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. If they are exceptions or relevant to the baptism of water being the norm for salvation, then it must mean that these cases are not invisible but visible for us. This is an objective error. We cannot see the deceased.
-Lionel Andrades

http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?a=topic&t=25108&min=15&num=3

We do not know any objective case and it's theology is being discussed in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949

We do not know any objective case and it's theology is being discussed in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.We have principles ,declarations and theology based on non existent persons.

There are no known cases and the theology of a non existent case is being discussed.It is  as if we know someone in particular  who has been saved or is going to be saved a such.
Fr.R:
3.You agree that empirically, objectively the deceased are not visible to us on earth? Yes, of course



Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel:
We do not know any case of someone 'knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff,...'.You have agreed that empirically, objectively the deceased are not visible to us on earth? Yes, of course
Does not the  Letter imply that we do know such a case. So these persons , are inferred to be exceptions to all needing to enter the Church with faith and baptism. 
We empirically cannot see or know any exception and yet the Letter says here 'no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established..' Why mention this ? There is not a single person known as such and the Letter is putting forward principles and discussing the theology of a non existent person?

In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. -Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel:
Again the Letter of the Holy Office assumes that those saved with 'only desire and longing' are physically visible on earth to be exceptions to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney. We do not know any objective case and it's theology is being discussed above. We have principles ,declarations and theology based on non existent persons.
 
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God. -Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel:
This seems like a lot of nonsense. There are no known cases and the theology of a non existent case is being discussed.It is  as if we know someone in particular  who has been saved as such or is going to be saved a such.

 
1949
Richard J. Cushing, Archbishop of Boston – Decree Regarding Leonard Feeney, April 18, 1949

Rev. Leonard Feeney, S.J., because of grave offense against the laws of the Catholic Church has lost the right to perform any priestly function, including preaching and teaching of religion.
Any Catholics who frequent St. Benedict’s Center, or who in any way take part in or assist its activities forfeit the right to receive the Sacrament of Penance and Holy Eucharist.
Given at Boston on the 18th day of April, 1949.
Lionel:
'has lost the right to perform any priestly function, including preaching and teaching of religion.' Note, we now have an Archbishop Richard J.Cushing  who is teaching that there is known salvation outside the Church when he does not know of a single such case.
Since Fr.Leonard Feeney would not admit that there is salvation outside the Church he removes his right to teach religion etc.
-Lionel Andrades

You Fr.R. have affirmed here that the deceased who are now saved in Heaven with the baptism of desire etc are not visible to us on earth :so how can they be exceptions to the dogma ?


Fr.R:
As you say in sound classical logic, “nego maiorem”.

 


Lionel:

What do you negate ?

1.Do you negate that we cannot see the dead
 who are in Heaven ?

2.Do you negate that these deceased in Heaven
 are visible exceptions to Fr.Leonard  Feeney ?

3.Do you negate an empirical, objective 
observation that the deceased are not visible 

to us on earth?
When are you going to comment on this?


_______________________________



Fr.R:

I don’t. Instead I negate that all these things are 
consequences of the supposed errors in the magisterial 

documents.


Lionel:

1.Do you negate that we cannot see the dead
 who are in Heaven ?

2.You affirm  that these deceased in Heaven 
are not visible exceptions to Fr.Leonard 

Feeney ?

3.You agree that empirically, objectively the 
deceased are not visible to us on earth?

1. The magisterial texts I have quoted do not
 infer that we can see the dead who are 

in Heaven?

2.The magisterial texts do not affirm that the 
deceased in Heaven are visible exceptions

 to Fr.Leonard Feeney?
___________________________________________________

Fr.R:
 I don’t. Instead I negate that all these things are
 consequences of the supposed errors in the
 magisterial documents.


1.Do you negate that we cannot see the dead
 who are in Heaven ? I don’t
2.You affirm  that these deceased in Heaven
 are not visible exceptions to 
Fr.Leonard Feeney ? I don’t know the position
 of Fr. Feeney. For me is not the question.
 Is irrelevant.
3.You agree that empirically, objectively the 
deceased are not visible to us on earth? 
Yes, of course
1. The magisterial texts I have quoted do not
 infer that we can see the dead who are 
in Heaven? They don’t, of course. That’s the
 point. “Nego maiorem”.
2.The magisterial texts do not affirm that the 
deceased in Heaven are visible exceptions
 to Fr.Leonard Feeney???? Irrelevant.
________________________________________
Fr:R:
2.You affirm  that these deceased in Heaven are not visible 
exceptions to Fr.Leonard Feeney ? I don’t know  the position
 of Fr. Feeney. For me is not the question. Is irrelevant.

Lionel:
Let me explain. This question is central to what I 
have been writing.
Fr.Leonard Feeney like the saints and Church
 Fathers  held that very one needed  to enter the
 Church  for salvation. His traditional position 
 was that all needed to  be formal members of the
 Catholic Church to avoid Hell.
 For him those who died without 'faith and baptism', 
Catholic Faith and the baptism  of water were 
oriented  to Hell.The baptism of desire was a 
possibility for him but it would be followed  by the
 baptism of water.There were no exceptions to the 
baptism of water.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 says Fr.Leonard
 Feeney and the St. Benedict Center are wrong since
 a person can die in invincible ignorance or with 
implicit  desire (for the baptism of water) and be
 saved.So for the Letter of the Holy Office  there
 were exceptions for the baptism of water. There
 were known replacements  for the baptism of 
water  i.e baptism of desire etc without the 
baptism of water.
For them there is salvation outside the Church
 and so every one does not have  to be a formal
 member of the  Catholic Church to  be saved.
You Fr.R. have affirmed here that the deceased 
who are  now saved in Heaven with the baptism
 of desire etc are not visible to us on earth. 
We cannot  see the deceased  on earth.
So the question is : if we do not know any such
 case  on earth how can the baptism  of desire 
and being saved in invincible ignorance be
 exceptions to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard
  Feeney? For them to be exceptions they would
 have  to be known and visible. Zero cases of
 something are not exceptions said the apologist 
John Martigioni.
For him the baptism of desire and being saved in
 invincible ignorance are not  exceptions to extra 
ecclesiam nulla salus.
For you they are exceptions?
-Lionel Andrades


Do you negate an empirical, objective 
observation that the deceased are not 
visible  to us on earth? When are you 
going to comment  on this?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/09/do-you-negate-empirical
-objective.html#links

Do you negate an empirical, objective observation that the deceased are not visible to us on earth? When are you going to comment on this?

Fr.R:

As you say in sound classical logic, “nego maiorem”.



Lionel:
What do you negate ?
1.Do you negate that we cannot see the dead who are in Heaven ?
2.Do you negate that these deceased in Heaven are visible exceptions to Fr.Leonard Feeney ?
3.Do you negate an empirical, objective observation that the deceased are not visible to us on earth?
When are you going to comment on this?
-Lionel Andrades




There are no exisiting cases and you are discussing principles and theology as if they existed in real life

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/09/there-are-not-exisiting-cases-and-you.html#links

There are no exisiting cases and you are discussing principles and theology as if they existed in real life.

Fr.R :
No, they don’t imply anything like this. In these texts there are declarations as principles, not as cases. The interpretation of the dogma by Fr. Leonard Feeney is irrelevant. Again and again, the question is not whether there is any exception in “this” year or not…


Lionel:
'In these texts there are declarations as principles, not as cases'
Yes .
However the principles and declarations are based on an irrationality.
When there is no case how can you make principles. If I cannot see any one in 2014 being saved in invinicible ignorance or the baptism of desire what is the purpose of issuing statements and discussing its theology.
There are not exisiting cases and you are discussing principles and theology as if they existed in real life.


Fr.R:
The interpretation of the dogma by Fr. Leonard Feeney is irrelevant

Lionel:
It is generaly believed including at the university at which you teach that the baptism of desire etc are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney. There is no known case and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 is discussing principles and theology.
 


 Fr.R:
Again and again, the question is not whether there is any exception in “this” year or not…
Lionel:

If the Letter of the Holy Office says in the text that the baptism of desire is an exception to the traditional interpretation of the Church Councils and popes, then it is the Letter which is referring to the exceptions, not just me.
-Lionel Andrades
Every one in 2014 needs the baptism of water for salvation. Do you personally know any exception this year?

Every one in 2014 needs the baptism of water for salvation. Do you personally know any exception this year?


Fr.R :Your lecture, inference and interpretation of all these documents is wrong… that’s all!
Lionel:
It is not me making inferences.
I have quoted you the exact text. This is the text you have used to teach Catholic students and seminarians.Don't you imply that the dead are visible and and are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma by Fr.Leonard Feeney ?
For example this is the text:
Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of
Christ on earth.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel:
We do not know any case of someone 'knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff,...'. In 2014 this is irrelevant. Every one in 2014 needs the baptism of water for salvation. Do you personally know any exception this year?


In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. -Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel:
Again the Letter of the Holy Office assumes that those saved with 'only desire and longing' are physically visible on earth to be exceptions to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney. Where are these cases in 2014?.
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God. -Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel:
If a person is saved in invincible ignorance it will be known only to God. This is something theoretical for us, hypothetical. Does not the Letter of the Holy Office assume that a hypothetical case is a de facto exception?.A theoretical case is a subsititute for all needing the baptism of water for salvation in 1949?. Is this not being taught at the...(university and seminary where you teach)?-Lionel Andrades
 
 


This is an intellectual, philosophical observation with which you have to agree with me, being a good Catholic

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/09/this-is-intellectual-philosophical.html
 
September 13, 2014
What a mess !


 
 

 


This is an intellectual, philosophical observation with which you have to agree with me, being a good Catholic.

Fr.R :Perhaps, instead of all these documents, it is you who is wrong …
Lionel:
In what way ?
...You know that we cannot see the dead in Heaven.
You know that the dead in Heaven cannot be a visible exception to all needing the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
Here we have Church documents which help you to infer that these deceased are exceptions to all needing to be formal members of the Church!
It is common knowledge that we cannot see the dead and these deceased cannot be exceptions. This is an intellectual, philosophical observation with which you have to agree with me, being a good Catholic.
-Lionel Andrades
 
September 13, 2014
What a mess !

What a mess !

This objective error from 1949 would now be repeated in many other magisterial documents including Vatican Council II, where the Archbishop and the Jesuits were active. The error would be repeated in Redemptoris Missio(N.10 is contradicted by 28 etc.Issued in 1990). It is there in the Balamand Declaration(N.30, June 1993). It would then be reproduced in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1257.Issued in 1994 in English), Dominus Iesus(1 is contradicted by 2 etc.Issued in 2000),  Christianity and the World Religions (N.10 and 67.(1997)International Theological Commission) and The Hope of Infants who die without being baptised (N.59 etc (April 20.2007) International Theological Commission ) and other magisterial documents.
 
Here starts trouble for the Catholic Church.
1949:
Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of
Christ on earth.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel:
We do not know any case of someone 'knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff,...'.The Letter implies that we do know. So these cases, are inferred to be exceptions to all needing to enter the Church with faith and baptism. They are in Heaven so how could they be exceptions to all needing the baptism of water.
It is a fact of life that we cannot see the dead. This is a factual error in the Letter of the Holy Office.

In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. -Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel:
Again the Letter of the Holy Office assumes that those saved with 'only desire and longing' are physically visible on earth to be exceptions to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney. Objectively in 1949 , they could not see these alleged replacements for the baptism of water.They did not exist. So the baptism of desire was never an exception or relevant to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
 
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God. -Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel:
If a person is saved in invincible ignorance it will be known only to God. This is something theoretical for us, hypothetical. The Letter assumes that a hypothetical  case is a de facto exception.A theoretical case is a subsititute for all needing the baptism of water for salvation in 1949?.
 The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were never exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. An injustice was done to Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Centers.
 
1949
Richard J. Cushing, Archbishop of Boston Decree Regarding Leonard Feeney, April 18, 1949


Rev. Leonard Feeney, S.J., because of grave offense against the laws of the Catholic Church has lost the right to perform any priestly function, including preaching and teaching of religion.
Any Catholics who frequent St. Benedict’s Center, or who in any way take part in or assist its activities forfeit the right to receive the Sacrament of Penance and Holy Eucharist.
Given at Boston on the 18th day of April, 1949.
Lionel:
'has lost the right to perform any priestly function, including preaching and teaching of religion.' Note we now have an Archbishop who is teaching that there is known salvation outside the Church. He infers that there are physically visible cases of non Catholics saved without the baptism of water.This is objectively wrong. We caanot see or know cases in Heaven for them to be exceptions on earth to the necessity of the baptism of water for all, for salvation.
This objective error from 1949 would now be repeated in many other magisterial documents including Vatican Council II, where  Archbishop Richard Cushing  and the Jesuits were active. It would then be reproduced in  the Catechism of the Catholic Church(N.1257.English edition issued in 1994), Dominus  Iesus(N.1 is contradicted by N.2 etc), Redemptois Missio(N.10 is contradicted by N.28 etc), Balamand Declaration(N.30, June 1993), Christianity and the World Religions (N.10 and 67 (1997),International Theological Commission) and  The Hope of Infants who die without being baptised(N.59. (April 20.2007) International Theological Commission ) and other magisterial documents.
-Lionel Andrades

___________________________________________________



Factual Errors in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949


Bishop Charles Morerod in a doctrinal error says the SSPX cannot use Catholic Churches because of a doctrinal issue

The Call to Holiness and Catholic Identity Conference speakers will use a false premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II, Redemptoris Missio, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Dominus Iesus... http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/09/the-call-to-holiness-and-catholic.html
Two Catholic Conferences this week end - how would they interpret the Catechism of the Catholic Church ?

Two Catholic Conferences this week end: how would they interpret Redemptoris Missio? http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/09/two-catholic-conferences-this-week-end_11.html
Two Catholic Conferences this week end : how would they interpret Dominus Iesus ? http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/09/two-catholic-conferences-this-week