Tuesday, May 5, 2015

Questions and Answers : Did the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 make a factual mistake ?

1. After 1949 the error came in a big way into the Catholic Church ?


After 1949 Church documents in a big and clear way refer to cases in  Heaven being  physically known to us on earth. These cases in Heaven not visible to us, become evidence of salvation outside the Church i.e non Catholics saved without the baptism of water and Catholic Faith.Fantasy.These persons in Heaven become exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire ( allegedly followed by the baptism of water) refer to persons who did not need to formally convert into the Church.They are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus in 2015.Since allegedly we personally know these exceptions. We an see them and meet them on earth. This is the hypothesis. It is a false premise.

This was the visible-dead exception theory of Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani when he issued theLetter of the Holy Office 1949.It was accepted by the Magisterium. Since 1949 even apologists like Fr.John Hardon did not object.
Vatican Council II mentions those who are saved in invincible ignorance and with implicit desire in LG 14 and AG 7. However they do not refer to known,visible and nameable  cases in 2015. So we should not consider them as exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
When Vatican Council II refers to those who know and do not enter being damned, we should recall that those who know or do not know, are known only to God. So again this is not a reference to an exception to EENS. The mistake is often made here.An  exception would have to be visible, known and nameable  to be an exception to the dogma.
When Dominus Iesus and Redemptoris Missio imply that there is salvation outside the e Church, we have to recall that there is no such case known or capable of being known to us.
EENS suggests that we assume that there are people saved in their religion with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water in a way known only to God.In Heaven there are only Catholics. This we know from the dogma.In Heaven they are  there without mortal sins on their soul.They  are there with 'faith and baptism(AG 7).
When the Catechism of the Catholic Church says all who are saved are saved though Jesus and the Church we must note that  this is not an exception to the strict interpretation of the dogma. Due to Cardinal Marchetti's mistake it is being implied there is salvation outside the Church,when the Catechism(1257) says God is not limited to the Sacraments.
It is  unfortunate that popes, cardinal and bishops have not had the ability to affirm in public, the strict interpretation of the dogma. Instead they have  allowed all this confusion to enter magisterial documents since 1949. The confusion was there earlier.How when Cardinal Marchetti criticised Fr.Leonard  Feeney the error became concrete. For some 19 plus years they did not lift the excommunication. Not even during Vatican Council II.When they did lift the excommunication he was not asked to recant and he had made it clear that he had not recanted.
Until today, at Holy Mass and in Catholic media and publications, Jesus is proclaimed without the necessity of formal entry into the Church with faith and baptism, for salvation.
The traditional aspects  of Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger's  Catechism of the Catholic Church can be accepted but the passages which suggest that persons now dead for us and who are in Heaven are nameable, known and visible on earth,must be  rejected or re interpreted .These documents are clearly saying that there is known salvation outside the Church.
The error is usually  implied  in the references to being saved in invincible ignoroance and the baptism of desire being exceptions to the necessity of all converting into the church in the present times.They are not exceptions.
___________________
2. Cardinal Marchetti mixes up a theoretical case with practically all needing the baptism of water in the present times ? 
LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE

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



(Lionel: We do not know any one in 2015 who is saved or will be saved with implicit desire or in invincible ignorance.So who knows or does not know, is known only to God.The Letter implies that we know who these cases are and so not every one needs to enter the Church as Fr.Leonard Feeney taught.Only those who 'know' need to enter the Church, as compared to the dogmatic teaching which says all need to formally enter the Church.Cardinal Marchetti mixes up a theoretical case with practically all needing the baptism of water in the present times.
He is lost in the forest here.)

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: Why mention that a person can be saved in desire and longing with reference to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Where are these cases ? What are their names? The cardinal assumes there are known cases and so it is relevant to the dogma. He assumes there are exceptions to the dogma.Hypothethical cases are defacto exceptions. He is confused here.
All at sea. Ignorant. )
This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (, nn. 797, 807).-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
(Lionel. No where does the Council of Trent say that there are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus or that we know in real life who these people are for them to be exceptions.In Cardinal Marchetti's mind they are visible and known. So for him they are exceptions.
Missed the bus.)
Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
(Lionel: The dogma says all need to be incorporated into the Church actually as a member and he denies it. For him there are known cases of persons who do not need to be incorporated as members of the Church.
Still lost.)
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 desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance..' in other words this case is known, explicit, objective for Cardinal Marchetti. So it is an exception to the rigorist interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
In a soup.Confused.)
These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
(Lionel: 'those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and 'those who are united to the Church only by desire' . 'Those who are united to the Church only by desire' will be saved, while being outside the visible limits of the Church.Since these cases are visible and known for Cardinal Marchetti they are exceptions to all needing to be incorporated into the Church as members for salvation. This is inferred and so Fr.Leonard Feeney is pulled up.He had to say that they were known exceptions to the dogma and there was salvation outside the Catholic Church.He has to say that not all people need to defacto be members of the Church for salvation.He did not and so criticized him.
He is still in a tangle here.)
From what has been said it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical , fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without.-Letter of the Holy Office.
(Lionel : From the Housetops was saying there are no known exceptions to the dogma.
They were expected to say the Emperor has clothes on.)
Hence, one cannot understand how the St. Benedict Center can consistently claim to be a Catholic school and wish to be accounted such, and yet not conform to the prescriptions of canons 1381 and 1382 of the Code of Canon Law, and continue to exist as a source of discord and rebellion against ecclesiastical authority and as a source of the disturbance of many consciences.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
(Lionel: They were saying that there are no known exceptions.It was nothing new. It was traditional.)
Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a "Defender of the Faith," and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities, and has not even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons because of his serious violations of his duties as a religious, a priest, and an ordinary member of the Church.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
(Lionel: The lawful authorities were saying that there were exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma. Implicit desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, referred to known cases saved without the baptism of water. So there was known salvation outside the Church for the lawful authorities.
Dictatorship of relativism within the Church.)
Finally, it is in no wise to be tolerated that certain Catholics shall claim for themselves the right to publish a periodical, for the purpose of spreading theological doctrines, without the permission of competent Church authority, called the "" which is prescribed by the sacred canons.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
(Lionel: The competent authorities were saying that all persons do not need to enter the Church but only those who 'knew', those who were not in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire and who were saved. So all need to enter the Church except for this category- of exceptions.
The magisterium went off the tracks here.)
Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after "Rome has spoken" they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church "only by an unconscious desire." Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
                             







 (Lionel: They were being criticized for  saying there are no exceptions.Even today, it is the same old story.)

___________________________

 
I think it was the Holy Office 1949 and the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing who were in heresy for denying the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, with their alleged 'exceptions', whom they could not name and which no Church document prior to 1949 mentioned.
The dogma said all need to be formal members of the Catholic Church with the baptism of water and they were saying, not all.
1.Who were the exceptions visible and known to them? Who were these objective exceptions in Boston and elsewhere? No one.
2.Where in Mystici Corporis or the Council of Trent was it said that the baptism of desire referred to personally known cases and so these hypothetical persons were exceptions to the dogma? No Church document infers this. This was the error of the magisterium and ecclesiastical hierarchy in Boston. It was a new doctrine in the Church. It was heresy.
It was irrational theology based on assuming that visible cases in Heaven  ( baptism of desire etc) were exceptions to the dogma.This was the irrational premise which was the foundation of their theology. They concluded that these 'visible cases' were 'explicit' exceptions toextra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors etc. So with an irrational proposition ( visible baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance) they concluded that Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center were wrong.




The Archbishop also misused his power and excommunicated Fr.Leonard Feeney. The  excommunication was not lifted even during Vatican Council II.This gave them time to  enforce heresy, the new doctrine,in the Council.The popes were not supporting Fr.Leonard Feeney in public.No one was going to say that all the non Catholics in Boston need to convert for salvation and there were no exceptions.
Ask yourself where are the exceptions in 2015? Can you see anyone who does not need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water and who will be saved?
How can we know that someone is saved outside the Church (without faith and baptism)?
Why did Fr.Leonard Feeney have to say in 1949 that there was salvation outside the Church? They did not know of any one saved outside the Church.
How can a defined dogma be replaced by a letter from a cardinal  and that too with an objective mistake?
The Letter was wrong in assuming that the baptism of desire was relevant or an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It had nothing to do with the dogma.
How could the magisterium in 1949 contradict the magisterium of the previous centuries?
Why did the Catholic professors at Boston College, members of the St.Benedict Center, lose their teaching job ? It was because they refused to proclaim this irrationality!
How we see Vatican Council II, how we interpret it, depends upon  how we see the Fr.Leonard Feeney case.It is like putting on two different coloured glasses.It changes how we look at the world.If Fr.Leonard Feeney is in heresy then Vatican Council II is a break with the past.If the Holy Office and the Archbishop of Boston were in heresy, then Vatican Council II is in agreement with Tradition.
We make our choice between two spectacles with different colours, at the point of the Fr.Leonard Feeney Case.To whom does the Boston Heresy refer to ?
So if Mons. Bruno Gherardini says Vatican Council II is wrong for 'these and those' logical reasons, I would say he is responding to the premise he has chosen.He assumes Fr.Leonard Feeney was in error.This is the premise chosen by the SSPX,many traditionalists and the Vatican Curia.
If someone(Lionel for example) says Vatican Council II is traditional for 'these or that' logical reason, I would say this is correct based on the choice of the two premises. For me the  Letter of the Holy Office made an objective mistake.
We choose to accept or reject the  premise made by the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. If you reject the irrational inference in the Letter, the Council becomes traditional and in agreement with Fr.Leonard Feeney's rigorist interpretation.(It is choosing between the red and blue columns, the left and right hand side column).
If Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior General of the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX)  wants Vatican Council II to be interpreted in agreement with the Syllabus of Errors he simply has to say that the Holy Office 1949 during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII  was in heresy. Vatican Council II changes.
If the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Fr.Leonard Feeney's community in the USA,want to interpret Vatican Council II in agreement with the rigorist interpretation  of the dogma, they simply have to say that the magisterium in 1949 made an objective, factual error. Vatican Council II changes. They have put on different glasses.
The theologians John Lamont, Thomas Pink 1 and others are not using this paradigm when discussing Vatican Council II, since like the original professors at Boston College, they could lose their teaching authority, now given to them by bishops,for whom Fr.Leonard Feeney is in heresy.Even the Franciscans of the Immaculate have to accept Vatican Council II using the red hand side column. They make the Gherardini choice.
____________________________________________

On the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX/USA) website there is a criticism of Fr.Leonard Feeney's alleged teachings.
The SSPX and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 contradict the dogma defined three times and also Vatican Council II ( Ad Gentes 7).
According to the dogma and Vatican Council II (AG 7) every one needs to be a member of the Catholic Church.This is the defacto requirement. In 2014 we do not know any one saved or going to be saved 'united to her  by desire and longing'.So this is factually incorrect. The Holy Office is assuming that possibilities of salvation, hypothetical cases are defacto known in the present times.
So what if there is a case in invincible ignorant ?. It is not objective for us. It is not explicit. It has nothing to do with the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
Those who are united to the Church only by implicit desire and saved are unknown to us in 2014. They are unknown to us over the last 100 years or more.They were unknown also during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII.When we do not know any such case personally and cannot in future know any such case then why should we claim that someone is saved united to the Church only by implicit desire?
Fr. Feeney and Catholic doctrine
A reissue of the article appearing in Verbum, No. 24 (1986), prefaced by the previous Editorial, clarifying the teaching of the Church regarding Baptism
Conclusion
Let us finally quote the letter of the Holy Office condemning Fr. Feeney’s teaching:
That one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.(Lionel :According to the dogma and Vatican Council II (AG 7) every one needs to be a member of the Catholic Church.This is the defacto requirement. In 2014 we do not know any one saved or going to be saved 'united to her  by desire and longing'.So this is factually incorrect. The Holy Office is assuming that possibilities of salvation, hypothetical cases are defacto known in the present times) 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 wants his will to be conformed to the Will of God.(So what if there is a case with invincible ignorant ?. It is not objective for us. It is not explicit. It has nothing to do with the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.Mistake compounded!) These things are clearly taught in the dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943 (Mystici Corporis)(He does not say that there are visible cases of persons saved with the baptism of desire etc. Neither does he state there that these cases are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus)... he mentions those who are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer "by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation; (He does not state that these cases are visible exceptions to the dogma or that these cases cannot be followed by the baptism of water.So one cannot assume all this and suggest Pope Pius XII said it) but on the other hand, he states that they are in a condition "in which they cannot be sure of their salvation" since "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church!" With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire (those who are united to the Church only by implicit desire and saved are unknown to us in 2014. They are unknown to us over the last 100 years or more.They were unknown also during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII.When we do not know any such case personally and cannot in future know any such case then why should we claim that someone is saved united to the Church only by implicit desire?), and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally as well in every religion. (Letter to the Archbishop of Boston, August 8, 1949). 
Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J and those whom he represents, will not accept Vatican Council II interpreted according to the General Chapter Statement i.e Lumen Gentium 16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance) will not be an explicit exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, since there are no exceptions.
The SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012 contradicts the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.The General Chapter Statement tells us that defacto there are no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and so this is the position of the SSPX in talks with the Vatican .The Letter of the Holy Office on the contrary says  there are exceptions and all do not need to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation.
'we reaffirm our faith in the Roman Catholic Church, the unique Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation nor possibility to find the means leading to salvation', says the SSPX  in 2012  and the Holy Office in 1949 says'Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.'
So before the SSPX signs a Doctrinal Preamble what will be the position of the Bishop Bernard Fellay ? 
Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J and those whom he represents, will not accept Vatican Council II interpreted according to the General Chapter Statement i.e Lumen Gentium 16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance) will not be an explicit exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, since there are no exceptions.
___________________________
 

  1. All Salvation Comes through Christ -Pope John Paul II

GENERAL AUDIENCE  MAY 31, 1995

The difficulties that sometimes accompany the development of evangelization highlight a delicate problem, whose solution is not to be sought in purely historical or sociological terms. It is the problem of the salvation of those who do not visibly belong to the Church.
Lionel:
They are on the way to Hell according to the dogma defined three times and according to Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7).
 
 We have not been given the possibility to discern the mystery of God's action in minds and hearts, in order to assess the power of Christ's grace as he takes possession, in life and in death, of all that "the Father gives him," and which he himself proclaims he does not want to "lose." We hear him repeat this in one of the suggested Gospel readings in the Mass for the dead (cf. Jn 6:39-40).
However, as I wrote in the Encyclical Redemptoris Missio, the gift of salvation cannot be limited "to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all." 
Lionel:
If there are any exceptions it would be known only to God. We cannot defacto know any of these cases. So they are not exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation in the present times.There are no visble exceptions known to us and neither does Vatican Council II claim that there are exceptions to the dogma defined thrice.
We do not know for instance in 2014 the case of any one who is not explicitly a member of the Catholic Church and who is saved. Did Pope John Paul II assume there were known cases of someone saved outside the Church ?
And, in admitting that it is concretely impossible for many people to have access to the Gospel message, I added: "Many people do not have the opportunity to come to know or accept the Gospel revelation or to enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions" (RM 10).
Lionel:
If any of them are saved they are not known for example, in the 2014, to be an exception to all needing faith and baptism for salvation.
We must acknowledge that, as far as human beings can know and foresee, this practical impossibility would seem destined to last a long time, perhaps until the work of evangelization is finally completed. Jesus himself warned that only the Father knows "the exact time" set by him for the establishment of his kingdom in the world (cf. Acts 1:7).
What I have said above, however, does not justify the relativistic position of those who maintain that a way of salvation can be found in any religion, even independently of faith in Christ the Redeemer, and that interreligious dialogue must be based on this ambiguous idea. That solution to the problem of the salvation of those who do not profess the Christian creed is not in conformity with the Gospel. Rather, we must maintain that the way of salvation always passes through Christ, and therefore the Church and her missionaries have the task of making him known and loved in every time, place and culture. Apart from Christ "there is no salvation." 
Lionel:
Apart from the Church there is no salvation. There are no known exceptions.
 
As Peter proclaimed before the Sanhedrin at the very start of the apostolic preaching: "There is no other name in the whole world given to men by which we are to be saved" (Acts 4:12).
Lionel: 
Formal entry in to the Church is necessary for salvation for all according to Vatican Council II (AG 7).
 
For those too who through no fault of their own do not know Christ and are not recognized as Christians, the divine plan has provided a way of salvation.
Lionel:
They are irrelevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This was the error of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which inferred that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, were visible to us in real life and so were explicit exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church for salvation.
 As we read in the Council's Decree Ad Gentes, we believe that "God in ways known to himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel" to the faith necessary for salvation (AG 7). Certainly, the condition "inculpably ignorant" cannot be verified nor weighed by human evaluation, but must be left to the divine judgment alone. 
Lionel:
We do not know of any such case in real life. There is no defacto, objective case. So we cannot infer that these cases are exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the Church Councils, Popes, saints and Fr.Leonard Feeney.
    For this reason, the Council states in the Constitution Gaudium et Spes that in the heart of every man of good will, "Grace works in an unseen way.... The Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery" (GS 22).
Lionel:
This is a hypothethical case once again.It is not an exception to the dogma.We do not know any one saved with the grace of the Holy Spirit who did not need the baptism of water for salvation.
The dogmatic teachings are de fide teachings inspired by the Holy Spirit.
 It is important to stress that the way of salvation taken by those who do not know the Gospel is not a way apart from Christ and the Church.
Lionel:
However this is an hypothetical case. A theoretical case cannot be an explicit exception to all needing 'faith and baptism' for salvation.(AG 7)
 The universal salvific will is linked to the one mediation of Christ. "God our Savior...wants all men to be saved and come to know the truth. And the truth is this: God is one. One also is the mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all" (1 Tim 2:3-6). Peter proclaimed this when he said: "There is no salvation in anyone else" and called Jesus the "cornerstone" (Acts 4:11-12), emphasizing Christ's necessary role at the basis of the Church.
This affirmation of the Savior's "uniqueness" derives from the Lord's own words. He stated that he came "to give his own life in ransom for the many" (Mk 10:45), that is, for humanity, as St. Paul explains when he writes: "One died for all" (2 Cor 5:14; cf. Rom 5:18). Christ won universal salvation with the gift of his own life. No other mediator has been established by God as Savior. The unique value of the sacrifice of the cross must always be acknowledged in the destiny of every man.
Since Christ brings about salvation through his Mystical Body, which is the Church, the way of salvation is connected essentially with the Church. The axiom extra ecclesiam nulla salus"--"outside the Church there is no salvation"--stated by St. Cyprian (Epist. 73, 21; PL 1123 AB), belongs to the Christian tradition. It was included in the Fourth Lateran Council (DS 802), in the Bull Unam Sanctam of Boniface VIII (DS 870) and the Council of Florence (Decretum pro Jacobitis, DS 1351). 
Lionel: 
So far so good ! He affirms the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The dogma does not mention any exceptions.
The axiom means that for those who are not ignorant of the fact that the Church has been established as necessary by God through Jesus Christ, there is an obligation to enter the Church and remain in her in order to attain salvation (cf. LG 14).
Lionel: 

There is an obligation for all to enter the Church according to the dogma cited above (Council of Florence etc).If any one who knows and does not enter and is damned  or does not know and is saved  it would be known only to God. De facto, in real life we cannot judge either way. So all need to enter the Church in 2014 for salvation and there are no exceptions.
 For those, however, who have not received the Gospel proclamation, as I wrote in the Encyclical Redemptoris Missio, salvation is accessible in mysterious ways, inasmuch as divine grace is granted to them by virtue of Christ's redeeming sacrifice, without external membership in the Church, but nonetheless always in relation to her (cf. RM 10). 
Lionel:
A hypothetical case. We personally do not know any such person.So this hypothetical case is not an exception to the teaching in Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441 on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It has nothing to do with the dogma unless the pope assumed that these were real objective cases,personally  known to us.
 
It is a mysterious relationship. It is mysterious for those who receive the grace, because they do not know the Church and sometimes even outwardly reject her. It is also mysterious in itself, because it is linked to the saving mystery of grace, which includes an essential reference to the Church the Savior founded.
Lionel:
Those who receive the grace and are saved are not personally known to us and so are not exceptions to the dogma which says all need to formally enter the Church to avoid Hell.
 
In order to take effect, saving grace requires acceptance, cooperation, a yes to the divine gift. This acceptance is, at least implicitly, oriented to Christ and the Church. Thus it can also be said that sine ecclesia nulla salus--"without the Church there is no salvation." Belonging to the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, however implicitly and indeed mysteriously, is an essential condition for salvation.
Lionel:
There is no mystery to it. Every one needs to be a formal member of the Catholic Church for salvation i.e every one needs Catholic Faith and the baptism of water to go to Heaven(AG 7)
Religions can exercise a positive influence on the destiny of those who belong to them and follow their guidance in a sincere spirit. However, if decisive action for salvation is the work of the Holy Spirit, we must keep in mind that man receives his salvation only from Christ through the Holy Spirit. Salvation already begins during earthly life. This grace, when accepted and responded to, brings forth fruit in the gospel sense for earth and for heaven.
Hence the importance of the Church's indispensable role. 
Lionel:
Yes and all need to formally enter the Church to avoid Hell.
She "is not an end unto herself, but rather is fervently concerned to be completely of Christ, in Christ and for Christ, as well as completely of men, among men and for men." This role then is not "ecclesiocentric," as is sometimes said. 
Lionel:
Yes it is ecclesiocentric.Since there are no known exceptions to all needing to enter the Church with 'faith and baptism'.There is no known salvation outside the Church. The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made an objective mistake.
The same mistake was carried over by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the theological papers of the International Theological Commission and the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257 etc.
It is a fact of life that we cannot see the dead who are now in Heaven. So these persons in Heaven cannot be exceptions on earth to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.
The Church does not exist nor does she work for herself, but is at the service of a humanity called to divine sonship in Christ (cf. RM 19). She thus exercises an implicit mediation also with regard to those who do not know the Gospel.
Lionel:
However all still need to be formal members of the Catholic Church for salvation.This is the dogmatic teaching confirmed in Vatican Council Ii (AG 7).
What has been said, however, should not lead to the conclusion that her missionary activity is less needed in these situations--quite the contrary. In fact, whoever does not know Christ, even through no fault of his own, is in a state of darkness and spiritual hunger, often with negative repercussions at the cultural and moral level. The Church's missionary work can provide him with the resources for the full development of Christ's saving grace, by offering full and conscious adherence to the message of faith and active participation in Church life through the sacraments.
This is the theological approach drawn from Christian tradition. The Church's Magisterium has followed it in her doctrine and practice as the way indicated by Christ himself for the apostles and for missionaries in every age.-Pope John Paul II
Lionel:
This is not  the theological approach drawn from Christian tradition before 1949. Before 1949 the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were not considered explicit for us. They were not considered exceptions to the dogma. This theological approach, of their being exceptions, even when we do not know of a single exception in real life, is Cushingism. It  emerged in the 1940's in Boston. 
There are no objective exceptions. We cannot see  the dead for them to be objective exceptions  to all needing to enter the Church formally with the baptism of water for salvation in 2014 . So if anyone, a cardinal or a pope, infers that we can see the dead it is an objecive mistake.
________________________


I would read the  magazine Il Settimanale di Padre Pio regularly every week published by the Franciscans of the Immaculate. I miss it now. There was a good article on extra ecclesiam nulla salus  by Corrado Gnerre.

The Franciscans of the Immaculate had translated a book in Italian of Fr.William Most, whose apologetics otherwise is  good.There was a  specific error in that book. They finally stopped distributing it.

The Franciscans of the Immaculate would not affirm 'the Feeneyite' version of extra ecclesiam nulla salus since they were afraid of the authorities at the Vicariate and the Vatican and believed they should be faithful to the magisterium.The priests were told not to say anything controversial.
Fr.William Most like the Franciscans of the Immaculate accepted the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 .The Letter considers the baptism of desire etc as being exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation in the present times. It considers the baptism of desire a replacement for the baptism of water.Here is the error. It is implying that a hypothetical, theoretical case is an explicit ,defacto exception to all needing to be formal members of the Catholic Church.It infers that the dead now saved in Heaven are living on earth and we can allegedly see them for them to be exceptions or subsititutes.
This error has permeated other magisterial documents and the Franciscans of the Immaculate accepted this.This error would be repeated in Redemptoris Missio(N.10 is contradicted by 28 etc.Issued in1990), Balamand Declaration(N.30, June 1993), Catechism of the Catholic Church (1257.Issued in1994 ), Dominus Iesus(1 is contradicted by 2 etc. 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 ).
Without this irrationality (visible dead exceptions) Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church is Feeneyite. This was not known to them in their analysis of Vatican Council II at conferences.
 
 

_________________________________
8.Denzinger says the dead are visible to all of us.It's official ?
 The Denzinger Schonmetzer (3870-387) has published the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which indicates that the dead are visible to us according to Catholic religious. The dead saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are physically visible to us.This is the interpretation of the Letter of the Holy Office by numerous people.
Since Fr.Leonard Feeney was corrected for denying visible baptism of desire it is alleged, the Church no more holds the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
According to this common interpretation, the Holy Spirit is now saying that the dogma has been superseded.This is all based on the ability to be able to physically see the dead who are saved.Since it is in the Denzinger it is official i.e the deceased now saved with the baptism of desire etc and who are now in Heaven are physically visible to us.It may be mentioned that this is a false view.

The Letter of the Holy Office supported Fr.Leonard Feeney on doctrine and criticized him for disobedience.The Letter mentions the 'dogma'. The text of the dogma does not cite any exceptions.
Also the Letter does not state that the baptism of desire and all implicit- to-us salvation is explicit or an exception to the dogma and the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
If the Holy Office suggested that implicit desire was an exception, to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney, then it would be saying that a hypothethical case is an exception ?
So if the Holy Office suggested that implicit desire was an exception, to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney, then it would be saying that a hypothethical case is an exception ? It would be a mistake ? Yes!
_______________________________________
 
9.Franciscans of the Immaculate and others are not obliged to follow the Letter of the Holy Office's factual mistake ?
There is a factual mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office , an irrationality  which Catholics are not  obliged to follow.1
 The Letter assumes that salvation in Heaven is visible to us.Then these 'physically visible' cases are  assumed to be exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. It is a fact of life that we cannot see the dead.
This is also the common irrational premise ( visible -dead theory) which is used in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.Lumen Gentium 16  (saved in invincible ignorance) is considered to be an exception to Ad Gentes 7 ( all need faith and baptism for salvation). LG 16 it is assumed refers to salvation which is visible for us.
 The Franciscans of the Immaculate must reject the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and its irrational reasoning. Then there would  be no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney. Similarly there would be no exceptions in Vatican Council II to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney. NA 2,UR 3, LG 16,LG 8,AG 11 etc would not contradict Tradition. It would rationally refer to implicit ( physically invisible) salvation in Heaven.It would not be a reference to explicit  salvation in Heaven, visible in the flesh.This is an irrationality. It is upon this irrationality that the liberals and the Vatican Curia have built their theology.Reject the premise and the theology and ecclesiology of Vatican Council II is traditional.
Aside from the factual error another reason for rejecting the Letter of the Holy Office is because of irregularities. 2.
1.
2.
Another fact left unstated in your article is that the letter of the Holy Office to Archbishop Cushing was not an official Act of the Apostolic See, for it never appeared in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis itself. Every author who has written ex professo on the subject has commented upon this mysterious fact. In consequence, the Jesuit Karl Rahner later had to invent a special category in order to provide an excuse for inserting the letter in Denzinger’s Enchiridion. The controversial missive was not put in Denzinger until 1963, the year Rahner retired as editor. We can logically assume that in 1962 (while preparing the 1963 edition) his coup de grace was to insert the unqualified document to stand where it ought not (“he that readeth, let him understand”), and then bow out without taking responsibility. And, are you aware what was (and still is) the “source” Denzinger’s compilation gives for the Holy Office letter? The American Ecclesiastical Review! These revealing facts are essential to an unbiased consideration of the case.http://catholicism.org/feeney-doctrine.html
____________________________

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre the founder of the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX)  first assumed  that a person could be saved in another religion 1  and this was anexplicit exception to Fr.Leonard Feeney and thetraditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This was the first mistake.He never criticized Pope Pius XII for assuming that the baptism of desire was visible and then inferring that it contradicted  Fr.Leonard Feeney's ' rigorist interpretation'.So there was an exception to the dogma for him. He  never complained.
 
He did complain however when Nostra Aetate 2 mentioned  being saved with ' a ray of the Truth'.Again he mistook ' a ray of the Truth' as being an explicit exception  to extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Tradition. This was his second mistake.
Basically, the mistake was to infer that all salvation in Heaven was visible to us on earth , known in personal cases and that these persons saved and visible were exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
 
Did he know that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 itself has made a factual mistake? Probably not.Since he criticized Vatican Council II ( with the visible -dead saved inference)  and was wrong to reject the traditional Vatican Council II ( without the inference). Perhaps he did not notice it and neither did the magisterium.

The Holy Office wrote off  a defined dogma  and the Archbishop accepted it !!
How can the baptism of desire, a hypothetical  case be a known exception to the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus?
The Archbishop unfortunately  did not realize this.For him the magisterium could not make a mistake.However the magisteium did make a mistake for him with Vatican Council II.He was correct the magisterium was wrong but so was he.The magisterium and Archbishop Lefebvre were interpreting Vatican Council II with the irrational premise. 
We now have found the link as to what makes the Council traditional or non traditional.
Pope Paul VI and Archbishop Lefebvre did not knowthat an irrational premise  was used in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
 The irrationality had come ( and was accepted) from the Boston Case in the 1940's where it as the Archbishop of Boston who really was in heresy.He suggested  there were known exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.There were exceptions to all needing the baptism of water with no exceptions.
 
The same error was made by Archbishop Lefebvre. His  first error was  to assume that implicit desire and being saved with the baptism of desire were explicit for us, visible in the flesh, objectively seen.His second mistake  was to assume that NA 2, UR 3, LG 16, LG 8, AG11 etc refer to visible to us cases.
How can salvation in Heaven be visible, in general to human beings? Also where is the Church document before 1949  which makes this claim?
 
Catholic priests in Rome know there is no such claim made by magisterial documents before 1949. They are aware of what I am saying here. Yet they do not want to affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salusaccording to Fr.Leonard Feeney.They also do not want to endorse Vatican Council II in agreement with Fr.Leonard Feeney.
On pro-SSPX(CathInfo., Archbishop Lefebvre forum etc) 2 forums they do not want to discuss this issue.Neither do the SSPX priests want to say that Archbishop Lefebvre  made a mistake  and so did the Holy Office in 1949.

Lay Catholics associated with the SSPX will meet next week at theRoman Forum Conference in Italy. They will ignore the two mistakes.They will continue to interpret Vatican Council II  with the false inference.In this way they do not affirm the truth and neitherextra ecclesiam nulla salus.
They are politically correct traditionalists.They have the same position on extra ecclesiam nulla salus as the liberals.
 
Pope Francis wants the SSPX and the Franciscans of the Immaculate  to accept Vatican Council II( with the inference). Since he does not know that  Vatican Council II( without the inference) is traditional.
He should be able to grant the SSPX canonical status unilaterally.It is he and the Vatican Curia who must first accept Vatican Council II (without the inference).He is making the same mistake as Archbishop  Marcel Lefebvre and the traditionalists.

1.
Evidently,certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism,etc.), but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions,who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire. ("Against the Heresies",p.216) (emphasis added)
 
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/archbishop-lefebvre-made-mistakesspx.html#links
2.


ON THE FEENEYITE HERESY
Leonard Feeney SJ did not invent the heresy which denies Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood. 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 that BOD & BOB are defined doctrines of the universal & ordinary magisterium that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith.

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.

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. 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. 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). 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.

Leonard Feeney SJ was not the originator of this heresy. 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.
Fr. Paul Kramer
 
 http://www.catholicessentials.net/baptismofdesire.htmhttp://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/ON-THE-FEENEYITE-HERESY
_________________________________
 
 
There are objective errors in the Letter of the Holy Office  1949. The Letter uses a false premise.Upon this premise it has based its theology.The theology  suggests there are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.What is not visible cannot be an exception. The baptism of desire is a possibility.It is  something we accept in faith, but it is not an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.Reason tells us that it is always implicit for us. It is always invisible for us. So how can what is invisible be an exception to all needing 'faith and baptism'(AG 7) for salvation.


1.


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.

Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949

Lionel:
The dogma, the infallible teaching says all need to enter the Church for salvation and not only those who know. Those who know or are in invincible ignorance are not known to us on earth.These cases are not
visible to us.Is it being inferred here that these cases are visible to us so only those who know are culpable and every one in general does not need to enter the Church  with Catholic Faith and the baptism 
of water? 
____________________________

2.

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:
'only in the desire and longing' have nothing to do with the centuries old teaching which says all need to convert.There is no visible case of someone saved ' only in the desire and longing'. So it is not an exception to the dogma.Neither is it relevant.So why is it mentioned here? What has 'only in the desire and longing' to do, for example, with everyone needing to enter the Church in 2014 for salvation ?___________________________

3.This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of  regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (, nn. 797, 807).-Letter of the Holy Office 1949

The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.

Lionel:

Desire and longing have nothing to do with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. These cases are not explicit as it is being suggested here. 
No pope or saint, who has referred to the baptism of desire, has said that it is visible for us. Rationally we know that the baptism of desire is always implicit for us and explicit for God. This is a given.
So why mention it here?
Is it because it is assumed here that these cases are visible to us and so are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
Did Pope Pius XII make a mistake ?

_________________________

4.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 is theology based on visible to us baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance.These cases are not known to us and here its theology is being explained.
The theology is based on a false premise that of being able to see the dead-saved.This is irrational. How can we see the dead? How can the deceased-saved be exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus? We do
not know of a single explicit case of the dead saved and upon this false premise a theology is being explained here.
___________________________

5.These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign
Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949

Lionel:

No where in that dogmatic letter is it said that the baptism of desire is explicit for us.This is another factual error.It is inferred wrongly that the baptism of desire is visible in particular cases, who
do not need the baptism of water for salvation.This is an objective error. We do not know any case of a person saved outside the Church with implicit desire.No magisterial document claims that they are
visible to us or that they are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
_

___________________________

6.Discussing the members of which the Mystical Body is-composed here on earth, the same august Pontiff says: "Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed."-Letter of the Holy Office 1949

Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire,"

Lionel:
"are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," refer to cases which are implicit for us.To be seen in real life they would have to be ghosts.So they
are not exceptions. If they were explicit, objectively visible then they would be relevant to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church.So this is not an exception to the dogma as interpreted by the
St.Benedict Center and Fr.Leonard Feeney i.e the traditional interpretation, as it was known for centuries.

___________________________

7.From what has been said it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical , fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and are very harmful both
to those within the Church and those without.
From these declarations which pertain to doctrine,...-Letter of the Holy Office 1949

Lionel:
It is not Catholic doctrine to assume that the dead are visible to us and they are explicit, seen in the  flesh exceptions, to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is a new doctrine.

____________________________

8.certain conclusions follow which regard discipline and conduct, and which cannot be unknown to those who vigorously defend the necessity by which all are bound' of belonging to the true Church and of
submitting to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and of the Bishops "whom the Holy Ghost has placed . . . to rule the Church" (Acts 20:28).-Letter of the Holy Office 1949

Lionel:
'submitting to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and of the Bishops "whom the Holy Ghost has placed . . . to rule the Church"'.
The authorities of the Church were telling Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center that there is known salvation outside the Church.This is a new doctrine. There was known salvation for them
since the deceased saved with implicit desire and in invincible ignorance were allegedly visible in the flesh fo them to be exceptions.The Holy Spirit cannot teach this irrationality.
To claim that there are known exceptions to a  dogma defined by three Church Councils and which Pope Pius XII called an 'infallible teaching' is heresy. It is also a rejection of the Nicene Creed ' I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin'.This refers to the baptism of water only. Here it is being implied in the Letter that there are three or more known baptisms, water, desire, blood etc.
_____________________________

9.
Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after "Rome has spoken" they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty
of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church "only by an unconscious desire." Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949

Lionel:
'submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation', who are here saying there are visible exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is factually incorrect.It is a fact of life that we cannot see the dead.

Fundamentally the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 assumes that being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are exceptions to the literal interpreattion of Fr.Leonard Feeney. Since they are
exceptions, they would have to be visible, for the Holy Office.Invisible cases are assumed to be visible.This is irrational.

____________________


Catholic Religious who have said that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are not known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, indicate that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr.Leonard Feeney, has made a factual mistake, in its common interpretation.

There was no need for the cardinal who issued the Letter to mention implicit desire and being saved in invincible ignorance. He did mention them!.It  could be an indication that he considered these forms of salvation, an exception to all needing to convert into the Church with the baptism of water and Catholic Faith.It means they would have to be physically visible for him.Otherwise how could they be an exception to the dogma ?
This seems the general interpretation of the Letter which was not corrected by popes and the magisterium.
The objective error was then carried over into Vatican Council II by Cardinal Richard Cushing and the American Jesuits.
The  Letter of the Holy Office in the first half (introductory) seems to support Fr.Leonard Feeney on doctrine and in the second half criticizes him for disobedience.The Letter was an unofficial inter-office  communication from one bishop to another.It was placed in the Denzinger by Fr.Karl Rahner and supported by the pro-Mason Catholics.
Now more Catholics are aware, that it is common knowledge, that the dead cannot be seen on earth.So they cannot be considered exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation. So Pope Pius XII made an objective mistake. He also contradicted the traditional dogma which he called an ' infallible teaching'(Letter of the Holy Office). The text of the dogma defined by three Church Councils does not mention any exceptions. Also no magisterial text which does refer to the baptism of desire, says that it is explicit for us.This was the Cushing mistake.

In the Letter of the Holy Office and in Vatican Council II  Cushingism has to be noticed as an  inference. No change is required in the text. Once the Cushing inference is detected and avoided,  there is no objective error in the interpretation.For example, without Cushingism, LG 16,LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc do not contradict AG 7 and the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.

DEAN OF THEOLOGY AT ST. ANSELM SAYS THERE ARE NO KNOWN EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUShttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/10/dean-of-theology-at-st-anselm-says.html#links
Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson says Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/archbishop-thomas-egullickson-says.html#links
REDEMPTORIST PRIEST SAYS VATICAN COUNCIL II DOES NOT CONTRADICT ITSELF NOR THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
CANTATE DOMINO, COUNCIL OF FLORENCE ON EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS IS DE FIDE AND NOT CONTRADICTED BY VATICAN COUNCIL II- Fr. Nevus Marcello O.Phttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/07/cantate-domino-council-of-florence-on.html
BRAZILIAN PRIEST SAYS VATICAN COUNCIL II DOES NOT CONTRADICT DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS

According to the Vatican'sInternational Theological Commission (ITC)  Pope Pius XII made an objective mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office, when he mistook implicit desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, as referring to people still alive on earth.It is an objective fact that the dead cannot be seen on earth.
When one is invincibly ignorant, God also accepts an implicit desire, so called because it is contained in the good disposition of soul by which a person wants his or her will to be conformed to God’s will”. -Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
So what? Is implicit desire and being saved in invincible ignorance  visible to us ? Can they be exceptions to the dogma on salvation? How is it relevant to Fr.Leonard Feeney's interpretation?.
The ITC assumes it is relevant! For the ITC there is no more 'an exclusive interpretation' of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Since there are objective, known cases of salvation outside the church for them.
In other words : Pope PIus XII made a mistake. He assumed that we can all see the dead who are saved with implicit desire.These are the known exceptions!
This is a factual error. We cannot see the dead for them to be exceptions to all needing to convert into the Church for salvation.
The Letter does not directly say that there are known exceptions to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney but this is what is assumed by the ITC.
So they affirm the traditional teaching in  Singulari Quadam and then reject it with the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston,by assuming implicit desire etc are explicit for us.

International Theological Commision
from 'The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without being baptized'
58. In the face of new problems and situations and of an exclusive interpretation of the adage: “salus extra ecclesiam non est”,[88] the magisterium, in recent times, has articulated a more nuanced understanding as to the manner in which a saving relationship with the Church can be realized.
The Allocution of Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quadam (1854) clearly states the issues involved: “It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it, will perish in the flood. On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who live in ignorance of the true religion, if such ignorance be invincible, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord”.
59. The Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston (1949) offers further specifications. “To gain eternal salvation, it is not always required that a person be incorporated in reality (reapse) as a member of the Church, but it is necessary that one belong to it at least in desire and longing (voto et desiderio). It is not always necessary that this desire be explicit as it is with catechumens.
When one is invincibly ignorant, God also accepts an implicit desire, so called because it is contained in the good disposition of soul by which a person wants his or her will to be conformed to God’s will”.
http://www.news.va/en/news/international-theological-commission-publishes-doc
_____________________
VaticanoII un dibattito aperto
15.SSPX  and Fr.J.M Gleize  are irrational?
There is no Catholic magisterial document which says there is anexceptional way of salvation.
There is no magisterial text which states there are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
There is no magisterial documentwhich states that those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are known to us in the present times.
We cannot name any such case.
Yet the publications of the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) District Italy state:
1.There is an exceptional way of salvation outside the visible limits of the Church ,
2.There is known salvation outside the visible limits of the Church mentioned in Vatican Council II.
The book Vaticano II -Un Dibattito Aperto written by Fr.J.M Gleize and published by the Italian District Superior of the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) at Albano, Italy stresses so much on the Magisterium and the infallibility of the pope. Yet it is not observed that Pope Pius XII called the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus an 'infallible statement' (Letter of the Holy Office 1949). This infallible statement' defined three times  by three Church Councils and popes , during different periods, does not claim there is known salvation outside the visible limits of the Catholic Church. The text does not say it.
No magisterial text claims there is known salvation outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church.
Neither can we in 2013 identify any person who is going to be saved who is not a visible member of the Catholic Church.Neither do we know anyone this year who is already saved. This is known only to God.
 So there is no magisterial text in Vatican Council II or after the Council, which contradicts the literal interpretation of the 'infallible statement'.No magisterial document mentions any exceptions., known or unknown.
 So when Fr.J.Gleize interprets invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire  as being an exception to the dogma who gives him this authority ? Is this not heresy?
The Letter of the Holy Office can be interpreted according to Cushingism (visible exceptions) or Feeneyism ( no visible exceptions). He chooses Cushingism.
Fr.Gleize also contradicts the General Chapter Statement of the SSPX (July 19,2013) which affirmed extra ecclesiam nullas salus and which stated that there are no exceptions.
For this reason it seems opportune that we reaffirm our faith in the Roman Catholic Church, the unique Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation nor possibility to find the means leading to salvation.-SSPX General Chapter Statement.
 Fr.Gleize mentions the Letter of the Holy Office to Cardinal Cushing of Boston and says  Lumen Gentium 16  on invincible ignorance  is a 'development' -but neither theLetter nor LG 16 claim that these cases- saved are visible to us on earth, for them to be exceptions to  extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the infallible teaching.

To claim that these  cases are visible and that the dogma has exceptions is heresy.He is changing the meaning of the infallible teaching, as the Church taught and knew it for centuries.
___________________
"You don't receive the water you can't be saved? Is that what Jesus is saying? No." says Robert Sungenis (0.58 Pt4 of 6: Is There Salvation Outside of the Church?- Sungenis http://youtu.be/45foZDKg7PI  )

This is confusion.Jesus is saying, for Robert Sungenis, that every one in 2013 does not need to receive the baptism of water for salvation? Defacto every one in the present times does!(John 3:5).There are no known exceptions. Sungenis does not know a single person who is an exception. He cannot name any exception in the present times.

(0.09) 'Or the desire of'. Yes a person can be saved with implicit desire but since we do not know these cases in the present times, this is irrelevant to the dogma outside the church there is no salvation or the need for the baptism of water for all (John 3.5,Mark 16:16).

'So that puts a whole different twist on it, doesn't it ?'(2.25) says Robert Sungenis. No it does not! It puts a whole different twist on it only if  implicit desire is explicit for us humans.Since implicit desire is known only to God it is not an exception to the dogma on salvation.This is ambiguity, uncalled for.

"We are into a whole new realm here" (3:37). Yes he is about to assume that implicit desire is explicit and so is an exception to the dogma and thus there is a new doctrine.A whole new realm.
 
"Enter a new term into the formula" (3:50). Exactly! A new term into the formula and one which is irrational.Explicit- implicit desire is a new term and idea.An American one, from Boston.

(5:27) If one is justified or saved it is only known to God. So how is this relevant to the dogma?
 
(7.17) The Council of Trent on that word desire. The Council of Trent only mentions the possibility of a person being saved with implcit desire. It does not state that these cases are visible to us or that they are relevant or an exception to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
 
(7.40) Pope Pius IX never said that implicit desire was explicit for us and so an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

It is because of this error of Cardinal Richard Cushing that Robert Sungenis and so many apologists (Patrick Madrid etc) assume that Vatican Council II is a break with the past and contradicts the traditional teaching on other religions and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

There is no anbiguity in the Council but this ambiguity is created, perhaps unintentionally by liberals and traditionalists when they assume that there is visible implicit desire, that we can actually see the dead saved with implicit desire who are exceptions to the dogma on salvation.

This is the false charge made against Fr.Leonard Feeney. How could the Jesuit priest from Boston be faulted for not denying that there are no exceptions to the dogma and that implicit desire and invincible ignorance are not exceptions ?

The Letter of the Holy Office nor Vatican Council II state that implicit desire is visible to us in the present times or is an exception to the traditional teaching on salvation.This is a common error supported by the media.
________________________________

17.Reconciliation of the Society of St.Pius X is now possible ?

Neither did Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani or Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre protest when it was assumed that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance were exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
They allowed the world to say, in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case, that the Catholic Church has changed its traditional teaching on salvation.

Since then the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church is interpreted irrationally. Young religious in formation are being told 'its a mystery' ( and a new one!).

Now that we know that the dead saved with the baptism of desire etc are not exceptions, to the dogma on salvation we have  'solved the mystery'.The reconciliation of the SSPX is now possible. It seems simple.A few announcements have to be made by the Vatican or the SSPX itself.
 
The CDF Prefect seems to understand the problem. A clue was his saying that all need to interpret Vatican Council II according to Tradition otherwise it is heretical.

Simple announcements would be:-

1. Fr.Leonard Feeney was not excommunicated for heresy and invincible ignorance cases are not visible. So they are not exceptions to his literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
 
2. It is irrational to assume that those saved in invincible ignorance and a good conscience(LG 16) are exceptions to all needing Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation (AG 7).So Vatican Council II does not contradict itself.
 
3.Implicit salvation(seeds of the word, imperfect communion with the church etc) are known only to God.These cases are not exceptions to the traditional teaching on other religions and ecumenism.
 
4. There can be a rational or irrational interpretation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. We do not know personally any case of a non Catholic saved through Jesus and the Church.So though these cases are accepted in principle as possibilities,they are not exceptions to the traditional teaching on other religions and the ecumenism of return.

Once these concepts are understood by Catholics at large, the SSPX would have to review its position on other religions, ecumenism and religious liberty with reference to Vatican Council II.
 
Since there are no exceptions to the dogmaextra ecclesiam nulla salus there is no basis for ' a development of doctrine' on these three issues.

There is no known salvation outside the church so there is no basis for the theology of religions, ecclesiology of communion and an ecumenism of non return.
The book Documenti,with collected theological papers, published by the International Theological Commission with the approval of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican makes this error. It assumes there is known salvation outside the Church. A correction or retraction of the two ITC papers in Documenti is needed.
 
Non traditionalists cannot cite any reference in the Council to support their irrational opinions.Vatican Council II is traditional. It is in agreement with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus , the Syllabus of Errors and the Social Reign of Christ the King.
_______________________________
18.Is Feeneyism heresy?
This is an opinion. Something implied from reading the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. The Letter does not state Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for heresy.

The liberal media says Fr.Leonard Feeney was in heresy for denying the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance which are exceptions to his 'rigorist interpretation' of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

1. The secular media assumes we know cases of persons saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire, who are known exceptions.Irrational.We cannot see the dead.So these cases are irrelevant to the literal interpretation of the dogma.
2.If Fr.Leonard Feeney was in heresy then so are the Church Councils which defined the dogma, also the popes in the ordinary magisterium and numerous saints.
3.In the book The Bread of Life we read that a catechumen could have a genuine desire, an implicit desire which could lead to salvation.So in principle he acknowledges implicit desire.Whether it led to justification or salvation was another issue.He did not deny implicit desire, leading to salvation, followed with the baptism of water, in a manner known only to God.
 
He denied that implicit desire and being saved in invincible ignorance was an exception to the dogma. There were no exceptions.
Since implicit desire is known only to God it is not an exception to the dogmatic teaching.
 
So is 'Feeneyism' heresy ? No.Since Fr.Leonard Feeney affirmed the dogma.He did not deny implicit desire. He rejected any known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This was the traditional teaching on extra ecclesiam nulla salus for centuries.So how could Fr.Leonard Feeney be in heresy.

The Letter of the Holy Office says he was excommunicated for disobedience. The Letter mentions 'the dogma'. The text of the dogma does not cite any exceptions
_________________________

19.The ambiguity in Vatican Council II comes from assuming that the dead are visible and it is traced to the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston ?

 
The ambiguity in Vatican Council II comes from the error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
Since the baptism of the desire etc was supposed to be an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogmaextra ecclesiam nulla salusVatican Council II would say only those who know (LG 14)need to enter the Church and not all people since it would be presumed that there were some people known on earth in invincible ignorance etc.Cardinal Richard Cushing , the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits in Boston  were active at Vatican Council.
Before Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 no Church-document implied that invincible ignorance was an exception to the dogma.LG 14 does this. That line was allowed to pass by all at the Council since of course, only Jesus can and will judge those who are invincible ignorance and those who know about Jesus and the Church and yet do not convert. So there is no controversy here.The Archbishop and the Jesuits could only create confusion. The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) has picked up the confusion and so says Vatican Council II is a modernist Council.

The fault is with the dead-but -visible- to- us view.If the correction is made mentally, the  correct interpretation is chosen, without the visible-dead theory, the Council is no more modernist. It becomes a traditional Council.The ambiguity ends.
When one identifies the error in the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston 1949 one can trace the fault lines throughout Vatican Council II and correct it.
____________________________________
20.The International Theological Commission's position paper Christianity and the World Religions 1997 has an objective, factual error and is approved by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger ?
A Catholic religious community of Fr.Leonard Feeney in Los Angeles,USA affirms the literal interpretation of the dogma outside the church no salvation. The hierarchy there assumes there are visible cases of the baptism of desire which are exceptions.This is similar to the International Theological Commission (ITC).So the community in Los Angeles is not recognized.The religious communities in Worcester,USA have been granted canonical status.They hold the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.They know there are no known exceptions.The community in Manchester,USA also know that there are no known exceptions to the dogma.This is common sense. 
Why cannot Catholic religious communities in general affirm the dogma and also implicit baptism of desire known to only God ?
The cardinals and bishops like the ITC assume you can telephone or meet these exceptional cases.So they say like the ITC that there is salvation outside the Church.

The International Theological Commission's position paper Christianity and the World Religions 1997 has an objective, factual error. Approved by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (1) it assumed  those saved with the baptism of desire are visible to us on earth. It also assumed that those saved in invincible ignorance and now in Heaven , are also known to us and they are defacto exceptions to the centuries old interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They would have to be visible and known to us for them to be explicit exceptions.
Magisterial documents mention those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. No document claims that these cases are explicitly known to us or that they are explicit exceptions to the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation.Even the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 does not directly make this claim. One has to assume, wrongly, that there are explicit exceptions to the dogma.

This was the error of the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing to whom the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was addressed. The Letter has many technical irregularities and so could also have been a bishop-to-bishop document.However the Letter mentions 'the dogma', the infallible teaching'. The text of the dogma is in agreement with the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
International Theological Commission (ITC)
It is not possible to develop a theology of the religions without taking into account the universal salvific mission of the Church, attested to by Holy Scripture and by the tradition of faith of the Church. A theological evaluation of the religions was impeded over a long time because of the principle extra ecclesiam nulla salus, understood in an exclusivist sense.-International Theological Commission,Vatican (ITC)
Lionel: 
It was not just a principle it was a dogma, thrice defined. Historically it was always understood that there is exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church. There are numerous popes and saints who testify to this. 
ITC
With the doctrine about the Church as the universal sacrament of salvation or the sacrament of the kingdom of God, theology seeks to respond to the new way of posing the problem.
Lionel:
That the Church is the universal sacrament of salvation or the sacrament of the kingdom of God does not conflict with the traditional exclusivist interpretation of the dogma.There can be those saved in invincible ignorance etc and it would be known only to God.

ITC
This teaching, which was also welcomed by Vatican Council II, is linked to the sacramental vision of the Church in the New Testament.
Lionel:
The sacramental vision of the Church has always been extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

ITC
63. The primary question today is not whether men can attain salvation even if they do not belong to the visible Catholic Church; this possibility is considered theologically certain.
Lionel:
Yes and it does not conflict with the literal interpretation of the dogma since we do not know who are these exceptional cases, they are known only to God.
ITC
The plurality of religions, something increasingly evident to Christians, better knowledge of these religions and the necessary dialogue with them, without leaving until the end the clearer awareness of the spatial and temporal frontiers of the Church—all these considerations make us ask whether one can nonetheless speak about the necessity of the Church for salvation and about the compatibility of this principle with the universal salvific will of God.

Lionel:
 In the year 2000, three years after this document was issued, Dominues Iesus 20 would say that the Church is necessary for salvation and though salvation is open to all, all need to respond, for salvation by entering the Church.
So the universal salvation in potential, is not in conflict with the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
ITC
A. "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus"
64. Jesus linked the proclamation of the kingdom of God with his Church. After Jesus' death and resurrection, the reunion of the people of God, now in the name of Jesus Christ, took place. The Church of Jews and gentiles was understood as a work of God and as the community in which one experienced the action of the Lord exalted in the heavens and his Spirit. With faith in Jesus Christ, the universal mediator of salvation, was joined baptism in his name; this mediated participation in his redemptive death, pardon of sins and entrance into the community of salvation (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5). For this reason baptism is compared with the ark of salvation (1 Pet 3:20ff.). According to the New Testament, the necessity of the Church for salvation is based on the unique salvific mediation of Jesus.
Lionel:
The unique salvific mediation of Jesus was in the Catholic Church, the Early Church, the Early Catholic Church.It still is only in the Catholic Church. There is no new Revelation to indicate otherwise.There is no text in Vatican Council II which says otherwise.

ITC
65. One speaks of the necessity of the Church for salvation in two senses: the necessity of belonging to the Church for those who believe in Jesus and the necessity for salvation of the ministry of the Church which, on mission from God, must be at the service of the coming of the kingdom of God.
Lionel:
There is the necessity of belonging to the Church for all with no exception on earth. Since we do not know who is in invincible ignorance or those who do not. Only God can judge.
It is not enough to just have faith in Jesus Christ one also has to live the faith and moral teachings of the Catholic Church. A Catholic knows that if he dies in mortal sin he is oriented to Hell even if he had faith in Jesus Christ.
According to the dogma Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, Protestants and Orthodox Christians need to convert to avoid the fires of Hell.2
 
ITC
66. In his encyclical Mystici Corporis, Pius XII addresses the question, How are those who attain salvation outside visible communion with the Church related to her? He says that they are oriented to the mystical body of Christ by a yearning and desire of which they are not aware (DS 3821).
Lionel:
Yes they can be saved and we do not know who are these cases specifically. So one cannot imply that those saved with the baptism of desire are exceptions to the dogma. They are not.

ITC
The opposition of the American Jesuit Leonard Feeney, who insisted on the exclusivist interpretation of the expression extra ecclesiam nulla solus, afforded the occasion for the letter of the Holy Office, dated 8 August ,1949, to the archbishop of Boston, which rejected Feeney s interpretation and clarified the teaching of Pius XII.
Lionel:
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 affirmed Fr.Leonard Feeney’s interpretation when it referred to ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible teaching’. The infallible dogma indicates all non Catholics in Boston and the rest of the world need to convert into the Catholic Church to avoid the fires of Hell.(Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441).

The text of the thrice defined holds the exclusivist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It was not just an expression or phrase but a defined dogma.
The dogma did not mention those saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire since they are not defacto, explicit exceptions. This was the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 does not state that Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for heresy but for disobedience.
If it was assumed that those saved with the baptism of desire etc are explicit exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma then it was an objective, common sense error.We do not know personally those saved in Heaven. It is only known to God.
ITC
The letter distinguishes between the necessity of belonging to the Church for salvation (necessitas praecepti) and the necessity of the indispensable means of salvation (intrinseca necessitas); in relationship to the latter, the Church is a general help for salvation (DS 3867—69).In the case of invincible ignorance the implicit desire of belonging to the Church suffices; this desire will always be present when a man aspires to conform his will to that of God (DS 3870). But faith, in the sense of Hebrews 11:6, and love are always necessary with intrinsic necessity (DS 3872).

Lionel:
 In principle this is accepted and is not in conflict with the dogma. De jure, in principle there can be these exceptions and they would be known to only God. Defacto, in reality every one with no exception needs to enter the Church for salvation.

ITC
67. Vatican Council II makes its own the expression extra ecclesiam nulla salus. But in using it the council explicitly directs itself to Catholics and limits its validity to those who know the necessity of the Church for salvation. The council holds that the affirmation is based on the necessity of faith and of baptism affirmed by Christ (LG 14). In this way the council aligned itself in continuity with the teaching of Pius XII, but emphasized more clearly the original parenthentical character of this expression.
Lionel:
Yes and no magisterial document says that implicit desire is an explicit exception to the dogmatic teaching or that we know these implicit cases explicitly.
The ITC does not mention Ad Gentes 7 but refers to LG 14 which has the same message which is all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation (to avoid Hell). This is an affirmation of the literal interpretation of the dogma and that of Fr:Leonard Feeney.
ITC
In this way the council aligned itself in continuity with the teaching of Pius XII, but emphasized more clearly the original parenthentical character of this expression.
Lionel:
 Pope Pius XII affirmed the literal, rigorist interpretation of the dogma. The baptism of desire etc are not exception to the ‘infallible dogma’.The ITC seems to suggst it in the earlier paragraph.
 
ITC:
68. In contrast to Pius XII, the council refused to speak of a votum implicitum (implicit desire) and applied the concept of the votum only to the explicit desire of catechumens to belong to the Church (LG 14). With regard to non-Christians, it said that they are ordered in diverse ways to the people of God. In accord with the different ways with which the salvific will of God embraces non-Christians, the council distinguished four groups: first, Jews; second, Muslims; third, those who without fault are ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and do not know the Church but who search for God with a sincere heart and try to fulfill his will as known through conscience; fourth, those who without fault have not yet reached an express knowledge of God but who nonetheless try to lead a good life (LG 16).

Lionel:
None of these groups of non Catholics are exceptions to the dogma. Since the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 mentions that ‘in certain circumstances’ it is possible for a non Catholic to be saved. This is not the general, ordinary means. The general, ordinary means of salvation is Catholic Faith and the baptism of water (AG 7). In principle a non Catholic can be saved in certain circumstances. Defacto, in general all need to enter the Church and there are no defacto known exceptions on earth.
ITC
69. The gifts which God offers all men for directing themselves to salvation are rooted, according to the council, in his universal salvific will (LG 2, 3, 26; AG 7). The fact that even non-Christians are ordered to the people of God is rooted in the fact that the universal call to salvation includes the vocation of all men to the catholic unity of the people of God (LG 13). The council holds that the close relationship of both vocations is rooted in the unique mediation of Christ, who in his body that is the Church makes himself present in our midst (LG 14).
Lionel:
‘The gifts which God offers all men for directing themselves to salvation are rooted, according to the council, in his universal salvific will’ which is the Catholic Church Jesus Mystical Body.(AG 7,LG 14)
 
ITC
70. Thus the original meaning is restored to the expression extra ecclesiam nulla salus, namely, that of exhorting the members of the Church to be faithful. Once this expression is integrated into the more universal extra Christum nulla salus, it is no longer in contradiction to the universal call of all men to salvation.
Lionel:
The universal call to salvation is not in contradiction with the centuries old teaching that the Church is necessary for salvation and all need to convert into the Church with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water (AG 7).
Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church mentions those saved in invincible ignorance and this is acceptable. It was known to the Church Fathers, popes and Councils. There is no magisterial document including the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which says that those saved in invincible ignorance are known to us or that they are explcit exceptions to the thrice defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The ITC, may be innocently, has wrongly assumed that these cases are known to us and so they are an exception to the dogmatic teaching on outside the church there is no salvation.
This was the error of the Archbishop of Boston Richard Cushing and the Jesuits there.They assumed outside the church there was salvation since a non Catholic could be saved in invincible ignorance. They did not state that this was accepted iin principle and defacto we could not know any such case.
-Lionel Andrades
 
1.
The study of the theme "Christianity and the World Religions" was adopted for study by a large majority of the members of the International Theological Commission. To prepare this study a subcommission was established composed of Bishop Norbert Strotmann Hoppe, M.S.C.; Rev. Barthelemy Adoukonou; Rev. Jean Corbon; Rev. Mario de Franca Miranda, S.J.; Rev. Ivan Golub; Rev. Tadahiko Iwashima, S.J.; Rev. Luis F. Ladaria, S.J. (president); Rev. Hermann J. Pottmeyer; and Rev. Andrzej Szostek, M.I.C. General discussion on this theme took place during several meetings of the subcommission and in the plenary sessions of the International Theological Commission held at Rome in 1993, 1994 and 1995. The present text was approved "in forma specifica" by vote of the commission on 30 September 1996 and was submitted to its president, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who has given his approval for its publication.
 
THRICE DEFINED DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
◦“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.) - Catholicism.org

Monday, March 26, 2012
INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION ASSUMES ‘SEEDS OF THE WORD’ (VATICAN COUNCIL II ) IN OTHER RELIGIONS ARE KNOWN TO US AND THIS IS AN EXPLICIT EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/international-theological-commission.html#links

VATICAN'S INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION MAKES AN ERROR IN ITS POSITION PAPER CHRISTIANITY AND THE WORLD RELIGIONS http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/vaticans-international-theological.html#links

___________________________

Questions and Answers : Evangelizing with Vatican Council II

Questions and Answers : Vatican Council II is Feeneyite. It has an exclusivist ecclesiology http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/05/questions-and-answers-vatican-council.html