Sunday, November 9, 2014

I think ‘the dogma of the faith’ was lost in 1949 at Boston in the Fr.Leonard Feeney Case

Here is the dogma mentioned by John Salza in the interview with Cornelia Ferrara.It is this ‘dogma of the faith’ which Our Lady mentioned at Fatima.She said it would be lost.

“Outside the Church there is no salvation” (extra ecclesiam nulla salus) is a doctrine of the Catholic Faith that was taught By Jesus Christ to His Apostles, preached by the Fathers, defined by popes and councils and piously believed by the faithful in every age of the Church. Here is how the Popes defined it:
“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)
“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)
“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

John Salza refers to Lumen Gentium 8, subsistit it.
Even if a non Catholic is saved outside the visible limits of the Church, this case would not be an exception to the dogma mentioned above.Since this case would not be known to us in 2014.We would not know who is this member of the Church. It would be known only to God.
So every one needs to formally enter the Church as mentioned in the dogma text.There cannot be any known exception.Since those who are in Heaven without the baptism of water ( if it is possible) would not be physically visible to us.

In the two videos however,Cornelia and John, do not discuss if the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance is an exception to the dogma quoted above. Is the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance relevant to the dogma? Are these cases exceptions to the literal and traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney? Is LG 16 or LG 8 an exception or relevant to the dogma Cantate Domino, Council of Florence ? Are they exceptions to Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II which says all need faith and baptism for salvation?
Once these questions are dealt with, one can discuss the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257-1260. Can the Magisterium which John mentioned make a mistake?

In think ‘the dogma of the faith’ was lost in 1949 at Boston in the Fr.Leonard Feeney Case.
-Lionel Andrades

Video Who is a Member of the Church?

John Vennari, Cardinal Kaspar and so many others are misinterpreting these Church documents and then repeating the error in Vatican Council II

 John Vennarri says that one has to approach Vatican CounciCouncil II documents (2:19) from a Catholic point of view otherwise the Council could be misleading. He says that we do not approach the Council of Trent or Vatican I similarly.Vatican Council II instead he says has to be read as Catholic with all these presuppositions because the Council documents do not necessarily give you a Catholic point of view.

Even with other Church documents John Vennari, Louie Verrecchi, Cardinal Walter Kaspar and the SSPX bishops and priests make the same mistake.
Take for example the Catechism of Pope Pius X. One has to be careful in the interpretation, similar to Vatican Council II.
In the Catechism of Pope Pius X 27 Q is not contradicted by 29 Q unless you assume that those who have received implicit desire (baptism of desire) are explicit for us .So one has to be careful here.
27 Q. Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church?
A. No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church.-Catechism of Pope Pius X 1905,Rome.
29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation. -Catechism of Pope Pius X, Rome 1905

1. On the University of Bristol video, Prof. Gavin D’Costa,a liberal Catholic professor of theology, assumed that ‘ a ray of Truth’ mentioned in Nostra Aetate 2 is explicit for us. So Nostra Aetate is considered an exception to the traditional teaching on salvation i.e 27 Q of the Catechism of Pope Pius X.

This is objectively wrong

2.In 2013 Bishop Fellay wrote the preface for the book written by the SSPX theologian Fr.Jean Marie Gleaze, Vaticano II- Un Dibattito Aperto (Editrice Ichthys). He recommended the book.

Fr.Jean Marie Glleize says in this book that in Mystici Corporis Pope Pius XII says ‘ in the exceptional way one can be saved outside the visible limits of the Catholic Church.’ How can there be an exceptional way to the dogmatic teaching? We do not know any explicit, visible case which could be an exception. If there are no known exceptions how can there be an exceptional way ?
Fr.Gleize is making the same error as the other priests and bishops of the SSPX in assuming that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, imperfect communion with the Church etc are visible exceptions. In faith we accept the baptism of desire as being implicit. It is a possibility. It is not an exception.It is hypothetical and not an exception to 27Q.

3.Also there is no text in Mystici Corporis which says there is an exceptional way. Neither does the Catechism of Pope Pius X state that there is an exception to 27Q.It does not state that 29Q is an exception.So Mystici Corporis has also to be read carefully.
4.Similarly the Council of Trent has to be read with a rational and Catholic approach because of the confusion caused by theologians.

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

By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
Canon IV-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.”-Council of Trent

5.And finally there is the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which infers that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are known exceptions to the traditional interpretation on the dogma by Fr.Leonard Feeney.
John Vennari, Cardinal Kaspar and so many others are misinterpreting these Church documents and then repeating the error in Vatican Council II.
-Lionel Andrades



The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) General Chapter Statement (July 19,2012) shows that they can accept Vatican Council with the hermeneutic of continuity.