Saturday, December 20, 2014

Please don't give him an article which infers that there are known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus

 
 

I am looking for a good article to post on this subject, primarily because we have a reader who seems eager to address the issue. Any suggestions?

I see
Catholicism.org has a whole list of linked articles on the issue; Farley Clinton has an article entitled "The Leonard Feeney Quarrel and Pius IX on Invincible Ignorance" (CatholicCulture.org) that is fairly lengthy. Googling "Feeney" and "invincible ignorance" brings up an SSPX article roundly criticizing Fr. Feeney's book, The Bread of Life (1952) as contradicting Church teaching. Here are some more historical details concerning Abp Cushing and the Holy Office from EWTN. The bottom line, as far as I can see, has to do with how "Extra ecclesiam nulla salus" is meant to be understood. Feeney (excommunicated in 1953) apparently held that original sin is wiped away only by the character imprinted on the soul by Baptism. Does this mean nobody under the Old Covenant (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses) is to be found among the saved? Absurd. So then, what does the statement mean? Have at it, if any of you are interested. Only, please observe the rules of common sense etiquette. Stick to the subject. No ad hominems or rudeness. No "carpet bombing" of copied text into the combox. No unwarranted inferences from cited sources casting aspersion on anyone. Etc. Etc. Etc.  http://pblosser.blogspot.it/
Lionel:
I see Catholicism.org has a whole list of linked articles on the issue
 
For Catholicism.org LG 16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance) is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So they infer that these cases are known and explicit in our times to be exceptions.The St. Benedict Centers still cannot say that LG 16,LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc do not contradict 'the rigorist interpretation' of the dogma according to  Fr.Leonard Feeney.
 
; Farley Clinton has an article entitled "The Leonard Feeney Quarrel and Pius IX on Invincible Ignorance" (CatholicCulture.org) that is fairly lengthy.
 
Lionel:
For Jeff Mirus at Catholic Culture LG 16 ( invincible ignorance) is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The dogma is no more valid. In other words he can see and know persons in 2014 saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water. So these 'visible' cases oppose the traditional teaching on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. Again we have the irrational inference.They infer that the dead now in Heaven are visible.Then they postulate this as an exception to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
 
  Googling "Feeney" and "invincible ignorance" brings up an SSPX article roundly criticizing Fr. Feeney's book, The Bread of Life (1952) as contradicting Church teaching.
Lionel:
When I ask Louis Tofari the SSPX spokesman in the USA to answer two questions he will not. He will say that the SSPX rejects Feeneyism ( whatever that means to him) or that the SSPX accepts all what the Church teaches on this issue.He has never answered these two questions.
 
TWO QUESTIONS
1) Do we personally know the dead now saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc,can we see them, are they physically visible to us in 2014 ?




2) Since we do not know any of these cases, in real life, they are not visible for us, there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, or Ad Gentes 7 which states 'all' need 'faith and baptism' for salvation ?    Is the answer YES or NO?

 Here are some more historical details concerning Abp Cushing and the Holy Office from EWTN. The bottom line, as far as I can see, has to do with how "Extra ecclesiam nulla salus" is meant to be understood.
Lionel:
The Holy Office and Cardinal Cushing held that there were known exceptions to the tradtional interpretation of the dogma. This was an 'historical exclusive' for the Letter of the Holy Office. Neither does Mystici Corporis or the Council of Trent claim that the baptism of desire referred to visible in the flesh cases and so was an exception to the dogma. There is no historical precedent before 1949.This inference was first made at Boston. Since then this irrationality has been incorporated in Magisterial documents including the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Dominus Iesus, Ut Unum Sint etc.
 
  Feeney (excommunicated in 1953) apparently held that original sin is wiped away only by the character imprinted on the soul by Baptism.
Lionel:
Yes only by the baptism of water.He is supported in Ad Gentes 7 and CCC 1257 ( in part).He is referring to defacto cases in the present times. A person could be saved with the baptism of desire.It would by hypothetical for us. There are no defacto, known cases. So the baptism of desire is not an exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.
 
  Does this mean nobody under the Old Covenant (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses) is to be found among the saved? Absurd.
Lionel:
They went to Heaven after the Resurrection of the Promised Jewish Messiah. Before that they had to wait in Abraham's bosom, as it was termed.
 
  So then, what does the statement mean? 
Lionel:
It means what it has meant for centuries-  before 1949.Check out the Church Councils, popes and saints.
 
Have at it, if any of you are interested. Only, please observe the rules of common sense etiquette. Stick to the subject. No ad hominems or rudeness. No "carpet bombing" of copied text into the combox. No unwarranted inferences from cited sources casting aspersion on anyone. Etc. Etc. Etc.
Lionel:
And also, please, no suggesting that the baptism of desire is relevant or an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
-Lionel Andrades

Sleeper Cells

Sydney Siege: Pregnant Woman Pays Tribute to Friend Who Died Protecting Her and Her Baby

by Steven Ertelt | Sydney, Australia | LifeNews.com 

Earlier this month, Australia was rocked by a rare episode of terrorism when a hostage siege in Sydney came to an end after police rescued hostages from a local cafe.
Tori Johnson, 34, and Katrina Dawson, 38, were killed during the terrorist siege at Sydney’s Lindt cafe. Julie Taylor, 38, was getting coffee with Katrina Dawson in the Lindt cafe when Man Haron Monis launched his fatal attack. Taylor attempted to shield her pregnant friend to save her and her unborn baby.
katrinadawson2
“She had been getting coffee with pregnant Julie Taylor when Man Haron Monis entered the building – and later admirably shielded her friend from bullets,” one newspaper reported. “It was not clear whether Mrs Dawson was shot or what other injuries, if any, she sustained in the shocking incident.”
Now, Taylor is paying tribute to her friend. Taylor revealed her unborn baby remains healthy and was unharmed by this week’s crisis and she penned an emotional statement about this week’s tragic events. She paid tribute to her late friend Katrina Dawson as “the most wonderful person I have ever met.”
Here’s what she wrote:
Although words cannot describe the events of the last few days and the feelings that I have towards the survivors and victims of the Martin Place siege, there are a few things I would like to say.
Katrina Dawson was the most wonderful person I have ever met. She was my closest friend, a role model and confidant. Her bravery and strength was, and continues to be, a comfort and inspiration for me. She invested every moment of her life in her friends and family, and will be greatly missed by everyone who has known her. My thoughts and sympathy are with her family, whom I have come to know and love.
 
I would like to pay tribute to Tori Johnson. Although our acquaintance was forged under the worst imaginable circumstnaces, I feel privileged to have known you and I will always remember you as a kind, considerate, level-headed and courageous person. It was clear to me how much you loved your family, and how much compassion you had for everyone you met. I am grateful that you were with my throughout our ordeal.
It is difficult to be positive at a time like this, but there are two things which provide comfort to me. The first is the overwhelming display of public support for everyone involved in this crisis, including me. My own visit to the Memorial at Martin Place gave me a strength for the coming weeks which I thought that I might not have, as have the messages and kindnesses that have been sent to me by everyone I know and many I don’t. It is good to know that none of us is alone.
Finally, my husband and I have been told that our unborn baby is healthy and unharmed by this crisis. If all goes well, and there is no reason to think that it won’t, we will give birth to a precious baby in a few months. Although it is an emotional time, we are trying to keep ourselves healthy so that can occur.
I thank members of the media for their respect of our privacy in this difficult time, and ask that you continue to do so.

 http://www.lifenews.com/2014/12/19/sydney-siege-pregnant-woman-pays-tribute-to-friend-who-died-protecting-her-and-her-baby/

A proposition

A proposition has to be rational and then we can draw principles from it.
For example, I could say that at a certain time of the year thousands of starlings will fly in formation in Rome and they will do so even next year if all things remain the same.
I can say this since I have seen the starlings myself and I have seen them every year.
I cannot say the same for the baptism of desire being a logical exception to the dogma, if I was asked to consider the baptism of desire as an exception. Since I would be wrong at the onset.The baptism of desire is not objective for me.Neither is it known in general to any one. So it cannot be proposed as an exception.It would be irrational to assume that a hypothetical case is a defacto exception to the dogma.This would not be a rational proposition. So I cannot  propose that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance  opposes the dogmatic teaching which says all need to formally enter the Church for salvation ( with faith and baptism).
 
Yet this is the irrational proposition made by many Catholics, including traditionalists.It is the number one irrational proposition in the Catholic Church.
I cannot see the dead saved with the baptism of desire. This is something real and factual for me.
This is not theology. It is not a theological principle.
It is not a philosophical principle.
I simply cannot see the dead.
The SSPX and the St.Benedict Centers( Fr.Leonard Feeney's communities) have created theologies based on the dead being visible on earth.
They have also extended this irrational reasoning to the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
Now when I present this information to them they do not want to admit that they made a factual mistake all these years. They were misled and they misled others.It was something they overlooked innocently.
It is also difficult for them to say, and I can understand this,that the magisteriuim made a factual mistake.Not a mistake of theology or philosophy but an objective mistake. The wrong theology and philosophy came later to support the factual error.
 
In response to this irrational theology I simply keep saying 'I cannot see the dead on earth. I cannot see any one saved with the baptism of desire in Heaven.' Do not propose an irrationality.No I cannot accept it.
-Lionel Andrades







It is the magisterium which has contradicted itself


VATICAN COUNCIL II CAN BE READ ACCORDING TO CUSHINGISM OR FEENEYISM. THE TEXT IS NEUTRAL http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/vatican-council-ii-can-be-read.html

 
Did Pope Pius XII make a mistake ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/did-pope-pius-xii-make-mistake.html#links

Did Pope Pius XII make a mistake ? : implicit desire, invincible ignorance have nothing to do with extra ecclesiam nulla salus http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/did-pope-pius-xii-make-mistake-implicit.html#links