Wednesday, February 11, 2015

Pope Paul VI offered the first Mass in Italian unaware of the Marchetti error which discarded the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus

When Pope Paul VI offered the first Mass in Italian (See photo. March 7, 1965) he was not aware of the error in the Marchetti letter of 1949 which discarded the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was interpreted over centuries.He was also not aware of an irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II which would emerge.
The dogma was rejected with claims of the baptism of desire being an exception, since it was inferred that these cases were personally known to us, to be exceptions. This was an objective error of the pope since these persons saved as such are in Heaven and so could not be an exception to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
At this Mass not only had he done way with a defined dogma he has also replaced the Traditional Latin Mass with a new Mass.
These days (Feb.2015)  in Rome's churches there are preparations to celebrate the 50 th anniversary of that first Mass in Italian.
 
Since this first Mass priests can offer Holy Mass while denying the thrice defined dogma without it being considered an impediment to offering Holy Mass.
 
Since 1949 the Traditional Latin Mass was also offered with this change in Catholic Faith.The change was recorded in Vatican Council II.
 
Pope Paul VI did not correct the irrational interpretations of Vatican Council II. Lumen Gentium 16 ( saved in invincible ignorance or a good conscience) was assumed to refer to known cases who were explicit exceptions, to all needing to convert into the Catholic Church, with 'faith and baptism'. So Lumen Gentium  16 contradicted Ad Gentes  7 and Lumen Gentium 14( all need faith and baptism for salvation). Pope Paul VI , nor any one else complained.
The text of Vatican Council II does not state that there are known cases of persons saved in invincible ignorance( with or without the baptism of water). So if there are no known cases how can there be exceptions to the dogma ?. However this was the general interpretation not corrected by Pope Paul VI. Even the traditionalists did not notice this error when they criticized Vatican Council II, which they interpreted with the irrational premise.
 
Pope Paul VI never said that without  the irrational inference,without Marchetti's Theory, Vatican Council II is in agreement with the rigorist interpretation of the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney, the Church Councils, popes and saints.
 
This was a major change in faith and liturgy.This  change in faith, we now know was a public heresy. Since the baptism of desire had nothing to do with the dogma. People in Heaven cannot be exceptions on earth! Yet with this reasoning Catholic faith was changed.
 
At the time Pope Paul VI was offering this Mass the excommunication of Fr.Leonard  Feeney was not lifted. Fr.Feeney refused to say that there were known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma.
Until today, there is no apology from the Vatican or the Jesuits, for the excommunication of Fr.Leonard Feeney. There were also four Catholic professors who were dismissed from Boston College, along with Fr.Leonard Feeney, for their traditional Catholic faith.The Jesuits in Rome will not comment.
 
Since 1965 the Novus Ordo Mass is being offered in Italy by priests who interpret Vatican Council II with the Marchetti inference and have changed the meaning in the Nicene Creed's  'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin' .All this is not an impediment to offering Holy Mass.
-Lionel Andrades
 
 
 
 
Paul VI among the people at All Saints, 7 March 1965.
 

J. Ratzinger: ci sono santi pagani, fuori dalla Chiesa ci si salva in larga scala

J. Ratzinger: ci sono santi pagani, fuori dalla Chiesa ci si salva in larga scala

http://radiospada.org/2015/02/j-ratzinger-ci-sono-santi-pagani-fuori-dalla-chiesa-ci-si-salva-larga-scala/

J. Ratzinger: ci sono santi pagani, fuori dalla Chiesa ci si salva in larga scala
(There are holy pagans outside the Church who are saved on a large scale )

51
Salt of the Earth
 
 

POPE CONTRADICTS BIBLE, CARDINAL LEVADA ISSUES NO CLARIFICATION. EXPECTS OFFICAL CLARIFICATION FROM BISHOP FELLAY

 
 
________________________________________
 

REPORT IS AN EXPOSE OF APOSTASY AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF THE CHURCH-ROBERT SUNGENIS

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2011/02/report-is-expose-of-apostasy-at-highest.html


CDF CLARIFIES COMMENT ON CONDOMS BUT NOT JEWS : POPE CONTRADICTS BIBLE
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2010/12/cdf-clarifies-comment-on-condoms-but.html#links

POPE SAYS REVISED GOOD FRIDAY PRAYER IS NOT FOR THE CONVERSION OF THE JEWS ? EARTHQUAKE SHIFT IN CATHOLIC TEACHING ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2010/12/pope-says-revised-good-friday-prayer-is.html

Pope Benedict XVI’s objective,factual error in Light of the World (Ignatius) p.107 is contributing to widespread liberalism and dissent in the Catholic Church.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/search/label/Light%20of%20the%20World


Msgr. Guido Pozzo could announce Vatican Council II agrees with literal interpretation of dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus while Nostra Aetate says Catholics are the ‘new people of God’ : pope made an error in Light of the World- all this is relevant to the Vatican-SSPX differences
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/04/msgr-guido-pozzo-could-announce-vatican.html
  CATHOLIC NEWS BLACK OUT ON BAGNASCO-RABBI DEAL
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2009/09/catholic-news-black-out-on-bagnasco.html#links

RABBIS WHO MET WITH CARDINAL ANGELO BAGNASCO ORIENTED TO HELL INDICATES VATICAN COUNCIL II
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2009/10/rabbis-who-met-with-cardinal-angelo.html#links
 
VATICAN COUNCIL II SAYS OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION Vatican Council II says outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

The Catholic Church teaches after Vatican Council II (1965) that all people need to enter the Catholic Church to go to Heaven (Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II). Catholic Faith with the Baptism of water is the normal, ordinary way of salvation for all people (Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II).The Catholic Church is the ordinary way of salvation for all people (Lumen Gentium 14).Non Catholics however can be saved through the extraordinary means of salvation (Lumen Gentium 16).Only God knows who are the non-Catholics saved through the extraordinary means of salvation; the exceptions. We do not know who the exceptions are. We cannot judge. Jesus, the Church, Scripture and Vatican Council II indicate that the priority is Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water for all people.

So everyone needs to enter the Catholic Church which is the like the only Ark of Noah that saves in the Flood (CCC).Non Catholic religions have good things in them. However they are not paths to salvation. All salvation comes through Jesus and His Mystical Body the Church. Those non-Catholics who know the above information and yet do not enter the Church are oriented to Hell (Ad Gentes 7, Lumen Gentium 14).Those non-Catholics participating in inter religious dialogue, are educated. They know. They are oriented to Hell.

Outside the Church there is no salvation. Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water are needed for all people. This is Vatican Council II.
No where in Nostra Aetate, Vatican Council II is it said that non Catholic religions are paths to salvation.
Vatican Council II is in harmony with John 3:5, the Church Fathers, the ex cathedra councils on extra ecclesia nulla salus, the Council of Florence, Evangelii Nuntiandi, Redemptoris Missio, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Dominus Iesus, Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Notification on Fr. Jacques Dupuis etc. In ‘certain circumstances’ as Pope Pius XII states (Letter of the Holy Office 1949) those with implicit faith, those who are not Catholics ,can be saved (without Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water).So we cannot interpret ‘It follows that these separated churches and Communities….’ as referring to the ordinary way of salvation. Since only in 'certain circumstances’; exceptionally and known to God only can members of separated Churches and communities be saved without Catholic Faith in the Catholic Church. The ordinary way of salvation is the baptism of water and Catholic Faith. For example the Catechism states that the Catholic Church knows of no way to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water (given to adults with Catholic Faith). So this is the ordinary way. Yet CCC 1257 also says salvation is not limited to the Sacraments. So here we have the dejure, extraordinary,exceptional means of salvation. In a way it is irrelevant to us since it will be judged only by Jesus.-Lionel Andrades

_________________________________________________________________________________

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.it/2011/07/cantate-domino-council-of-florence-on.html
 

AMERICAN APOLOGIST SAYS ITALIAN BISHOPS IN APOSTASY
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2009/10/american-apologist-says-italian-bishops.html#links

CATHOLIC PRIESTS CORRECT POPE BENEDICT'S MISTAKE : WE DO NOT KNOW ANY CASE OF A NON CATHOLIC SAVED IMPLICITLY BY JESUS AND THE CHURCH SO IT DOES NOT CONTRADICT CANTATE DOMINO,COUNCIL OF FLORENCE

The mention of the necessity of 'faith and baptism' for salvation, is an approval here of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, in Vatican Council II (LG 14,AG 7)

secondvaticancouncil7) “Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, [this 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).(Lionel: And they are unknown to us and can only be known to God. So they are not exceptions to 'the necessity of faith and baptism'(LG 14) for all in 2015 for salvation ( to avoid Hell).
Vatican II admitted to the possibility of salvation for non-Catholics (Lumen Gentium, #14-16).(Lionel: They could be saved with implicit desire or in inculpable ignorance. However since these are hypothetical cases for us and are  known only to God, we can assume they received the baptism of water and had Catholic Faith, when they went to Heaven. This is the dogmatic teaching. Since these cases cannot be known to us in the present times they are not exceptions to all needing 'faith and baptism' (LG 14,AG 7) for salvation. There is no contradiction here to the 'rigorist' interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.) This created a firestorm both within and without the Church, as it seemed to reverse the Church’s perennial teaching of “outside the Church there is no salvation.” (Lionel: The confusion arose with the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which assumed wrongly, that these cases were known to us in the present times and so it was concluded wrongly, that they were explicit exceptions to the dogma outside the Chruch there is no salvation) The result was that many questioned the necessity of the missionary endeavors of the Church, because if non-Catholics could be saved, why bother trying to convert them? (Lionel: There was no known case of a non Catholic saved outside the Church. This was the mistake of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. The error was not corrected and so the confusion was allowed to be placed in Vatican Council II LG 14) And one hardly need to mention the fact that now practically every funeral is a mini-canonization ceremony.
There are two important things to note about this passage. One is that it clearly states that those who know of the necessity of the Church for salvation cannot remain outside of it and hope to be saved. (Lionel: This is part of the confusion which came from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. Since it was wrongly assumed that those saved in invincible ignorance are known to us in personal cases, it was wrongly concluded that only those who know about Jesus and the Church and do not enter, will be condemned. This was a new doctrine created by Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.The original teaching is all with Original Sin need to convert inot the Church to avoid Hell.) The other is that, notwithstanding an acknowledgement of the possibility of salvation for non-Catholics, it also clearly states that the Church is necessary for salvation and that Christ is “the unique way of salvation.” (Lionel: The mention of the necessity of 'faith and baptism' for salvation, is an approval here of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, in Vatican Council II (LG 14,AG 7).This was the message also of Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Centers whom Cardinal Marchetti criticized).This is important to mention because some interpret Vatican II’s acknowledgment of the possibility of salvation for non-Catholics as saying that there are other paths of salvation outside the Church. But this, in fact, is not what either the council or the Church teaches. As a 2000 document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith makes clear, God’s “salvific grace … is always given by means of Christ in the Spirit and has a mysterious relationship to the Church.” The point is that those who may happen to be saved outside the visible confines of the Church are not saved in spite of the Church or Christ, but arrive at salvation some way through the Church and Christ. (Lionel: They arrive at salvation with 'faith and baptism'. There is no other way. We also do not know of any person in 2015 who has arrived at salvation through any other way).The council is, in fact, reaffirming the exclusive claim of Christ and His Church as the one path to salvation.  (Lionel: Yes, extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston and not Cardinal Marchetti at the Holy Office in 1949). - Lionel Andrades
 
 

The Majesty of the Faith - Michael Voris

http://youtu.be/iv82q6PiSEg

I WILL FOLLOW

http://youtu.be/-xTeTsrg9fE

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2015/02/have-you-seen-this-amazing-video.html

Bosnian bishop says pope will recognize Medugorje : Ivan resumes public apparitions in USA : Statue weeps anew in Italy

February 10, 2015

Some notes on recent Medjugorje news...



There are some items on the web and in news circles that have those with an interest in Medjugorje - one way or another - in discussion. I talk about three of them here.

Pope Francis to visit Bosnia


Pope Francis boards a flight to Manila
(AP Photo/Saurabh Das)
First, it was recently announced that the Holy Father would make a trip to Bosnia this June. Whenever the Holy Father is mentioned in the same sentence as Bosnia & Herzegovina (BiH), people automatically think: Medjugorje. Yet, this tiny nation still suffers from the wounds of war and ethnic tensions. I wonder: Will journalists around the world make that the center of their stories when he goes there, or will it play second fiddle to the alleged apparitions of Medjugorje? I can tell you, we need to know about the deep suffering taking place there, and what challenges face the bishops and priests of that nation.

I doubt the Pope is going there to tip his hand one way or another on Medjugorje. Might he make known his final discernment in the matter before then? Perhaps. The bishops of BiH are due for their ad limina visit this spring and it's hard to fathom it won't be discussed, at least privately. I would imagine the bishops would like resolution so they could move forward rather than have Medjugorje as a continuing question mark that draws attention from other, very serious matters we know little about.

Aside from the ethnic issues in that region, the Holy See wants resolution of a schism-like situation taking place in the Diocese of Mostar-Duvno which began in the years prior to the alleged apparitions of Medjugorje. In fact, there is a belief amongst critics and skeptics that the situation in Medjugorje has given very good cover to that problem. It is hard for some to fathom how the Blessed Virgin Mary could be appearing to people in a diocese where sacrilege has taken place in the form of invalid Sacraments; where dozens of priests remain suspended; where a number of priests and brothers were removed from the Franciscan order, with some still presenting themselves as Franciscan pastors of parishes usurped - yet, astonishingly, the lady of Medjugorje says nothing about this in any of her daily messages.

Did Bishop Komarica say the Pope will recognize Medjugorje?


I've cautioned in the past, with examples, that news from Medjugorje websites needs to be validated very carefully. This is especially true of the translations themselves. With a report showing up on Medjugorje Today suggesting a bishop tipped the Pope's hand toward's "recognition"and the mega-portal, Spirit Daily linking to it, I turned to Richard Chonak for translation of the German-language interview with Bishop Komarica (KOH-mar-eetza) of Banja Luka (BAH-nyah LOOH-kah). That interview was in the German language Vatican Radio website and if you put that link into an auto-translator you will see many other things were discussed. Richard isolated that part of the discussion focusing on Medjugorje and I use his rough translation here.

The interview with Vatican Radio was conducted in German (the audio is on the VR page). Q: "Was there never any discussion that the Pope might visit Medjugorje to form his own impression of it?"

Bp. Komarica: "Yes, actually, Medjugorje is a fact, since '91 [sic], and very many people went there from near and far. The Church has her preconditions, in regard to recognizing a place of pilgrimage. As for any visions there, we're leaving that to the Holy See, as is known. And it's necessary that the Church, the responsible Church officials continue to carefully accompany and evaluate the developments in Medjugorje. One should keep an eye on good fruits, and if there are also any negative fruits, one should isolate them so that one stops them. Thanks be to God, one doesn't hear so much about negative fruits. When Medjugorje is going to be recognized: we're leaving that to the Holy Father. It's his decision ... ["as far as I know"? difficult phone audio]."

Q: So there was never any discussion of a papal visit to Medjugorje?

Bp. Komarica: "As far as I know, no. If the decision might have been otherwise, certainly the Pope could have wanted to decide, and [pauses] the Pope decided as he decided, and he had corresponding reasons to do so, and I'm not able to comment much on that."

After reading that, notice the headline at Medjugorje Today. I would link to the article, but unless you pay the $19/month, you can't read any more than I am showing here (for comparison, a monthly subscription to the e-edition of the Miami Herald is just $6.95/month). The websites this is taken from is shown at top.



While they quote things Bishop Komarica actually said, it's the way they are arranged, coupled with the headline, and omissions, that takes the reader beyond what was really said. Aside from that, there are inconsistencies. First, he said it began in 1991 when it actually began in 1981. Secondly, he acknowledges there are negative fruits, even if he himself is unaware of too many. But, recognition of authenticity by the Church, or negation thereof, is not based on fruits, but on the events themselves using certain criteria provided by the Holy See years prior to Medjugorje. Fruits of any kind are secondary to that. The birth of a baby can never be a bad fruit, even if that baby is conceived in a sinful way. The birth of the baby to a mother out of wedlock does not change the objectively grave matter involved with illicit sex outside of Sacramental marriage; or, in the case of rape, the assault against the mother. In other words, illicit sex is discouraged on the basis that it is sinful, not on encouraged because of the goodness of a new life. Likewise, the good taste and nutritional value of a mushroom does not tell us whether it has an objective poison that can have harmful, if not lethal, effects. That is why events or facts surrounding the alleged apparitions are studied first, and fruits second. Noting good fruits augments good facts, and bad fruits are not disregarded. In fact, it is not the good fruits in followers that are examined, but the fruits in the visionaries and their spiritual directors and others who might guide them that the Church examines. Far down the list is when fruits in followers are considered. The Holy See has the fullest list of good and bad fruits in the alleged visionaries of Medjugorje and to my knowledge, they have not shared their findings with anyone yet.

Nowhere does Bishop Komarica indicate the Holy Father will recognize the authenticity of the alleged apparitions of Medjugorje. Even I have recognized in past writings that there have been real conversions among some who visit there. But, where supporters would point to the appearance of the lady of Medjugorje, I point to the Sacraments and prayer - especially Adoration and the Rosary. Many can be motivated to use Sacramental Confession when seeing big lines waiting for a multitude of priests. I know because I was motivated to go frequently at Assumption Grotto where the sight of lines stirred my conscience and my will to be cleansed. I also know that when I go to daily Mass, pray my Divine Office and Rosary, go to Adoration, and do regular spiritual reading, I get graces that help me to avoid sin and strength to practice virtue.

What often puzzles me is that if a diocesan bishop were to hold a public Rosary with Adoration on an ordinary Friday night, there would probably be sparse attendance. But if the same bishop, in all the same circumstances, invited an alleged visionary like Ivan Dragicevic to come, there would be standing room only. This is a serious, collective, spiritual impurity that would only come out for the sideshow of an apparition - real or not - and not to give of oneself in prayer with nothing in return.

Might the Holy Father recognize that people who visit Medjugorje for the Sacraments, and who take time to deepen their prayer life can see good fruits in their lives? Sure. Might he recognize the authenticity of alleged apparitions in Medjugorje? That's highly doubtful since some of the seers have ongoing visions. The Holy See has not recognize alleged apparitions that are ongoing for the simple reason that if they say today, "nothing opposes it" and tomorrow a presumed visionary claims the Blessed Virgin declared herself the fourth person of the Trinity, that error would negate authenticity. It would hurt the credibility of the Church, as well. On the other hand, if anything is signaling a lack of authenticity, then a negative decision can come down while the phenomena are ongoing.

Pope Francis did say in one of his daily homilettes:
Curiosity, the Pope continued, impels us to want to feel that the Lord is here or rather there, or leads us to say: “But I know a visionary, who receives letters from Our Lady, messages from Our Lady”. And the Pope commented: “But, look, Our Lady is the Mother of everyone! And she loves all of us. She is not a postmaster, sending messages every day.”

Ivan returns to the USA despite Apostolic Nuncio's admonition?

Word leaked out in 2013 that the CDF had twice admonished US bishops to cease giving alleged visionaries of Medjugorje a podium on Church property since this can lend credibility to the claims still being investigated by the Holy See. Today, I see at Medjugorje Today, this news:


To be clear, the prohibition involves Church property - parishes, Cathedrals, shrines, etc. Private groups can still host an alleged visionary of Medjugorje on private property, so the arranger is not "challenging" the Vatican on anything. But, the group hosting it seem to be disrespectful of logic used by the Holy See.

So who is hosting this and where? The Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich Foundation is hosting it at a center on the campus of a Presbyterian college in the greater St. Louis area. I'm not sure why a foundation devoted to her writings would involve themselves in something which carries the risk of a negative decision. But many are in denial of this possibility. There is no risk in not hosting an alleged visionary if such a thing were later approved. When the Holy See is investigating, people need to open themselves for all possibilities. The fact that the CDF admonished US bishops for hosting visionaries should make any organization pause and follow the same logic. Why take a chance of involving their cause with potential scandal? That is why the Church traditionally has never allowed alleged visionaries to do their thing or give their testimony on Church property. It makes me wonder if the Archdiocese of St. Louis will discourage it's priests from attending.

While pilgrimages are prohibited on the basis of authenticity (1991 Zadar Declaration), people can make a private pilgrimage to St. James in Medjugorje for the sacraments, prayer, etc. They may bring a priest with them. But this which is happening at the BACE Foundation is not a group of people getting together for the sacraments and prayer, but taking part in a pilgrimage brought to them from Medjugorje, complete with the alleged apparition. This thumbs it's nose at the 1991 Zadar Declaration.

Just a side note: Notice how the Blessed Ann Catherine Emmerich Foundation has already stepped ahead of the Holy See in declaring that it is Our Lady who will appear to Ivan. And, as noted, it is at the Standard Apparition Time™ of 6:40 PM. Not even Bernadette, who was proven to have seen the Blessed Mother later, would refer to her as Our Lady. She called her, "the lady" and left discernment of who this lady was to the Church.

Also, as just pointed out to me, there is admission being charged of $7. While this may be for the rental of the center, it's just unbecoming to have whom people believe is the Blessed Virgin Mary show up "on demand" with any kind of fee involved.




This was the irrational reasoning of Cardinal Marchetti in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 : the irrationality was used by Fr.Hans Kung and others to interpret LG 16,LG 8,UR 3,NA 2 etc


A local Monsignor from the FSSP sent these Saints to me after I sent you the e mail.

Here are some of the canonized catechumens I mentioned:

St. Emerentiana (Jan. 23)

St. Genesius of Arles (Aug. 25)

St. Victor of Braga (April 12)

St. Rogatian (May 24)

God Bless.

Lionel:
Thank you. I am familiar with this.
Note: we do not know of any St.Emerentiana ( and the others) in 2015. We do not know any one who will be saved without the baptism of water. We do not know any one who will be saved with the baptism of desire or blood and without the baptism of water.So we cannot posit these cases as being defacto exceptions in the present times ( Feb.2015) to all adults needing faith and baptism for salvation ( to avoid Hell).
Even if there is a case of someone being saved in the past with the baptism of blood , it is irrelevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, since these cases obviously do not exist in our time. So they cannot be exceptions for us human beings. They cannot be exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation in 2015.
This was the irrational reasoning of Cardinal Marchetti in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 .The same irrationality was used by Fr.Hans Kung and otheres to interpret LG 16,LG 8,UR 3,NA 2 etc as being as break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. How can they be an exception to the dogma when there are no such known cases in 2015. All such salvation is known only to God and cannot be visible to us .These persons would be in Heaven.
Please ask the good Monsignor from the F.S.S.P, how can Vatican Council II be an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ; according to the dogma as interpreted by the Church Father, saints , Church Councils and Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston?
In Christ
Lionel
_____________________________________________

The baptism of desire is accepted by me since it is not an exception to the dogma even when it occurs and it is known only to God

I received an e-mail.
Lionel,

There is no doubt in my humble mind that you are a devout Catholic. Your daily activities demonstrate an intense desire to try to do the will of God. You are absolutely correct and more importantly you are obedient to Jesus and the Church who commands us to teach ALL both Catholic and Non Catholic alike that there is no Salvation Outside the Catholic Church and we must have baptism by water in order to be saved. There is no reason to ever do anything other than to abide by this command. Therefore Baptism of desire, Baptism of Blood and Invincible Ignorance are extremely unlikely to ever come up during discussion with a Catholic or non Catholic unless you bring it up. In my entire life in untold conversations it has NEVER come up.

Having said this I must tell you that your understanding of Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood and Invincible Ignorance are wrong and prone to your private interpretation. Although you somewhat acknowledge their possibilities you act as if they are a null reality as judged by God in Heaven." Isaiah 40;13 Who hath forwarded the Spirit of the Lord? or who had been His councilor and taught Him?" Isaiah records in scripture with scorn and indignation. Also please reverence Romans 11:34, 1 Corinthians 2:16 and Ephesians 1:11. You say that those who attain salvation are not known or visible to us and you are partly correct. You are only correct in regards to those who are alive on this earth. That is the very reason that we never assume, project, encourage or forecast to anyone that this is a manner that they can choose from for salvation. This is the area where all save a few in the Church have failed to teach all that they must stay, return or enter into
the Catholic Church with no exceptions. Jesus commanded us to do this and there are no exceptions. While a person is alive the Church knows of and should never teach of any other path for Salvation.
Lionel where you are wrong is by saying that we do not know of anyone saved by Baptism of desire, Baptism of Blood or Invincible Ignorance. Examples of non Baptized Saints who are known to us and have been recorded and taught and even mentioned in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass for centuries. Saints Perpetua and Felicity were declared Catechumen Saints as remembered at Mass.
"Vibia Perpetua, a well-to-do young woman and mother, and Felicitas, a slave who gave birth to a child three days before suffering a martyr's death, were catechumens as recorded officially by the Church for ALL to believe. Lionel it is not for you to speculate or council God on particular or individual judgement for God is God and you are not. Our responsibility, duty and command is to teach all while on earth that there is no Salvation Outside the Catholic Church and baptism by water is a necessity for salvation.
Lionel you may take solace in the following syllabus of Pope Pius IX but you not think that if Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood and Invincible Ignorance were not Church teaching that they would have been condemned by a syllabus after all these centuries. These conditions are most certainly misused by all save a few in The Church to project salvation for the living and that is a tragedy which will be remedied by the Church or Jesus Himself.

III. INDIFFERENTISM, LATITUDINARIANISM / Syllabus of Errors +++ Pope Pius IX

Condemned......NEVER to be undone

15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation. -- Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846.

17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. -- Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863, etc.

18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given
to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. -- Encyclical "Noscitis," Dec. 8, 1849.
__________________________________________

REPLY:
 
Dear ...
Thank you for your kind letter and comments.Let me clarify at the onset that I do not deny the possibility of someone being saved with the baptism of desire ( implicit desire, charity and baptism of water). I only do not posit it as an exception to the dogma. SInce obviously in 2015 we do not and cannot know any such case.
So the baptism of desire was never ever relevant or an exception to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney. The Holy Office made a factual mistake. This has not been observed by the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary or the SSPX.
So this mistake has been carried over into Vatican Council II.
________________________________
Having said this I must tell you that your understanding of Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood and Invincible Ignorance are wrong and prone to your private interpretation. Although you somewhat acknowledge their possibilities (Yes they are possibilities) you act as if they are a null reality ( they are a ' null reality' for us humans. Since we cannot know who they are in the present times 2015. Of course they are known to God) as judged by God in Heaven." Isaiah 40;13 Who hath forwarded the Spirit of the Lord? or who had been His councilor and taught Him?" Isaiah records in scripture with scorn and indignation. Also please reverence Romans 11:34, 1 Corinthians 2:16 and Ephesians 1:11. You say that those who attain salvation are not known or visible to us and you are partly correct. You are only correct in regards to those who are alive on this earth. That is the very reason that we never assume, project, encourage or forecast to anyone that this is a manner that they can choose from for salvation. (Unclear) This is the area where all save a few in the Church have failed to teach all that they must stay, return or enter into
the Catholic Church with no exceptions. Jesus commanded us to do this and there are no exceptions. While a person is alive the Church knows of and should never teach of any other path for Salvation.(Agreed)

Lionel where you are wrong is by saying that we do not know of anyone saved by Baptism of desire, Baptism of Blood or Invincible Ignorance. Examples of non Baptized Saints who are known to us and have been recorded and taught and even mentioned in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass for centuries. Saints Perpetua and Felicity were declared Catechumen Saints as remembered at Mass.
"Vibia Perpetua, a well-to-do young woman and mother, and Felicitas, a slave who gave birth to a child three days before suffering a martyr's death, were catechumens as recorded officially by the Church for ALL to believe.(Yes it is possibile. It is possibile. It is also possible that in some way she received the baptism of water unknown to us) Lionel it is not for you to speculate or council God on particular or individual judgement for God is God and you are not. (the baptism of desire is accepted by me since it is not an exception to the dogma even when it occurs and it is known only to God ) Our responsibility, duty and command is to teach all while on earth that there is no Salvation Outside the Catholic Church and baptism by water is a necessity for salvation.(Agreed)
Lionel you may take solace in the following syllabus of Pope Pius IX but you not think that if Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood and Invincible Ignorance were not Church teaching (they are Church teaching and no Church document before 1949 says they are an exception to the dogma. This was the brainwave of Cardinal Marchetti. He brought this into the Church i.e if he wrote that controversial part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. However the magisterium accepts that Marchetti wrote that letter.They also accept his error.) that they would have been condemned by a syllabus after all these centuries. These conditions are most certainly misused by all save a few in The Church to project salvation for the living and that is a tragedy which will be remedied by the Church or Jesus Himself.
-Lionel Andrades

 
 



Gloria Polo - English (STANDING BEFORE GOD - THE JUDGMENT)

Video Youtube
Gloria Polo - English (STANDING BEFORE GOD - THE JUDGMENT)



Gloria Polo - English