Lionel Andrades on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

POSTED BY  Lionel Andrades

“BISHOP BERNARD FELLAY MADE A DOCTRINAL ERROR : CONTRADICTS CATECHISM OF POPE PIUS X

27 Q. Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church?A. No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church.-Catechism of Pope Pius X 1905,Rome.

29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation. -Catechism of Pope Pius X, Rome 1905

Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior General of the Society of St.Pius (SSPX) made a doctrinal error by confusing implicit for us baptism of desire as being explicit for us. What is invisible for us he implies is visible in the flesh.

In the Catechism of Pope Pius X 27 Q states  no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. In 29 Q it mentions that a person can be saved under certain conditions with the baptism of desire but does not state that these cases are visible for us.It does not state that 29C contradicts  27 Q and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Reason tells us that the baptism of desire can only be hypothetical for us. It is not known defacto, in reality, in personal cases.

Bishop Bernard Fellay has assumed that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus implying that these cases are personally and objectively known. Only if they are objectively known can they be exceptions in the present times.

So he had approved a book written by Fr.Francois Laisney and sold by the SSPX(District N.America) titled Is Feeneyism Catholic? (Angelus Press) in which it is assumed that the baptism of desire is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. In other words it is explicit.

Then on the SSPX  official website he has  approved articles on two web pages written by Fr.Francois Laisney and Fr.Joseph Pfieffer ( now SSPX-SOS) with the same objective error. It is assumed that we can physically see cases of the baptism of desire for them to be exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation and also to 27 Q of the Catechism of Pope Pius X.It is common knowledge that objectively we cannot see the dead who are in Heaven.

In 2012 he approved the SSPX General Chapter Statement in which extra ecclesiam nulla salus was affirmed and it was stated correctly that there are no exceptions.

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

Fr.Jean Marie Glleize says in this book that  in Mystici Corporis Pope Pius XII says ‘ in the exceptional way one can be saved outside the visible limits of the Catholic Church.’ How can there be an exceptional way to the dogmatic teaching? We do not know any explicit, visible case which could be an exception. If there are no known exceptions how can there be an exceptional way.

Fr.Gleize is making the same error as the other priests and bishops of the SSPX in assuming that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, imperfect communion with the Church etc are visible exceptions. In faith we accept the baptism of desire as being implicit. It is a possibility. It is not an exception.If the baptism of desire includes the baptism of water (St.Benedict Centers,USA) or excludes it (SSPX) it is hypothetical and not an exception to 27Q.

Also there is no text in Mystici Corporis which says there is an exceptional way. Neither does the Catechism of Pope Pius X state that there is an exception to 27Q.It does not state that 29Q is an exception.

This is a fundamental and major doctrinal error of the SSPX which was ovelooked at the Vatican-SSPX talks.The same error is being made by the cardinals and archbishop of the Vatican Curia.

Bishop Fellay has said that Vatican Council II contradicts the traditional teaching on other religions and Christian communities. Since  like  Fr.Jean Marie Gleaze, and the SSPX priests in general, he assumes there are explicit, visible in the flesh exceptions to  extra ecclesiam nulla salus mentioned in Vatican Council II. For him, LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc are not implicit but explicit for us.-Lionel Andrades

1. http://angeluspress.org/Is-Feeneyism-Catholic

The three errors of the Feeneyites http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_errors_of_feeneyites.htm

The three baptisms http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_baptisms.htm http://sspx.org/en/media/books/feeneyism-catholic-2075   ”

M Donnelly: Lionel I can see this subject is very important to you.  I have given it a separate post so there is an area for those who want to discuss this further. God bless

78 comments to Lionel Andrades on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

  • shaun the sheep

    I think this is above my pay grade. Having said that, it would be a good idea to include links/footnotes to original source material.

  • Michael B Rooke

    It might be noted

    INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION

    CHRISTIANITY AND THE WORLD RELIGIONS
    (1997)

    PRELIMINARY NOTE

    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. …..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.

    8. The fundamental question is this: Do religions mediate salvation to their members? There are those who give a negative reply to this question; even more, some do not even see any sense in raising it. Others give an affirmative response, which in turn gives rise to other questions: Are such mediations of salvation autonomous or do they convey the salvation of Jesus Christ? It is a question therefore of defining the status of Christianity and of religions as sociocultural realities in their relation to human salvation. This question should not be confused with that of the salvation of individuals, Christian or otherwise. Due account has not always been taken of this distinction.

    9. Many attempts have been made to classify the different theological positions adopted toward this problem. Let us see some of these classifications: Christ against religions, in religions, above religions, beside religions. An ecclesiocentric universe or exclusive Christology; a Christocentric universe or inclusive Christology; a theocentric universe with a normative Christology; a theocentric universe with a non-normative Christology. Some theologians adopt the tripartite division exclusivism, inclusivism, pluralism, which is seen as parallel to another: ecclesiocentrism, Christocentrism, theocentrism. Given that we have to choose one of these classifications in order to continue our reflection, we will follow the latter, even though we might complement it with the others if necessary.

    10. Exclusivist ecclesiocentrism—the fruit of a specific theological system or of a mistaken understanding of the phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus—is no longer defended by Catholic theologians after the clear statements of Pius XII and Vatican Council II on the possibility of salvation for those who do not belong visibly to the Church (cf, e.g., LG 16; GS 22).

    11. Christocentrism accepts that salvation may occur in religions, but it denies them any autonomy in salvation on account of the uniqueness and universality of the salvation that comes from Jesus Christ. This position is undoubtedly the one most commonly held by Catholic theologians, even though there are differences among them. It attempts to reconcile the universal salvific will of God with the fact that all find their fulfillment as human beings within a cultural tradition that has in the corresponding religion its highest expression and its ultimate foundation.

    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). 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. 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).

    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.

    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1997_cristianesimo-religioni_en.html

    • JabbaPapa [Julian Lord]

      Good post.

      10. Exclusivist ecclesiocentrism—the fruit of a specific theological system or of a mistaken understanding of the phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus—is no longer defended by Catholic theologians after the clear statements of Pius XII and Vatican Council II on the possibility of salvation for those who do not belong visibly to the Church (cf, e.g., LG 16; GS 22).

      This false interpretation is BTW (IIRC) an invention of the 19th century.

      Explanations of the doctrine earlier than that period are just as incompatible with the exclusivist ecclesiocentric interpretation as the Vatican II and post-Vatican II ones are.

    • Lionel Andrades

      Michael B Rooke

      It might be noted

      INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION

      CHRISTIANITY AND THE WORLD RELIGIONS
      (1997)

      PRELIMINARY NOTE

      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. …..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.

      Lionel:
      They unknowingly used the Cushing-Jesuit Factual Error.

      8. The fundamental question is this: Do religions mediate salvation to their members? There are those who give a negative reply to this question; even more, some do not even see any sense in raising it. Others give an affirmative response, which in turn gives rise to other questions: Are such mediations of salvation autonomous or do they convey the salvation of Jesus Christ? It is a question therefore of defining the status of Christianity and of religions as sociocultural realities in their relation to human salvation. This question should not be confused with that of the salvation of individuals, Christian or otherwise. Due account has not always been taken of this distinction.

      Lionel:
      We need to keep Vatican Council II (AG 7) before us. It says all need faith and baptism. We also need to keep the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Catechism of Pope Pius X before us.Ad Gentes 7 is placed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church under the title Outside the Church there is no salvation.
      We do not know any case in 2014 which contradicts this traditional teaching.So Lumen Gentium (16), Unitatis Redintigratio (3), Nostra Aetate (2)etc cannot be exceptions to the magisterial documents cited here.

      9. Many attempts have been made to classify the different theological positions adopted toward this problem. Let us see some of these classifications: Christ against religions, in religions, above religions, beside religions. An ecclesiocentric universe or exclusive Christology; a Christocentric universe or inclusive Christology; a theocentric universe with a normative Christology; a theocentric universe with a non-normative Christology. Some theologians adopt the tripartite division exclusivism, inclusivism, pluralism, which is seen as parallel to another: ecclesiocentrism, Christocentrism, theocentrism. Given that we have to choose one of these classifications in order to continue our reflection, we will follow the latter, even though we might complement it with the others if necessary.

      10. Exclusivist ecclesiocentrism—the fruit of a specific theological system or of a mistaken understanding of the phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus—is no longer defended by Catholic theologians after the clear statements of Pius XII and Vatican Council II on the possibility of salvation for those who do not belong visibly to the Church (cf, e.g., LG 16; GS 22).

      Lionel:
      Here it is assumed that implicit desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are explicit,visble to us exceptions to the literal nterpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. We have the Cushing-Jesuit Factual Error here. It is assumed that the the baptism of desire etc is visible and this was the view of Pope Pius XII. In other words the pope did not know that we do not know of any such case and so it cannot be an exception to Tradition.

      True there is ‘a possibility of salvation for those who do not belong visibly to the Church eg.G 16 etc) but these are hypothetical cases for us, only possibility. They are not defacto known in the present times so how can they be exceptions to traditional exclusivist ecclesiocentrism? To assume that the dead-saved are exceptions is an objective error.

      11. Christocentrism accepts that salvation may occur in religions, but it denies them any autonomy in salvation on account of the uniqueness and universality of the salvation that comes from Jesus Christ. This position is undoubtedly the one most commonly held by Catholic theologians, even though there are differences among them. It attempts to reconcile the universal salvific will of God with the fact that all find their fulfillment as human beings within a cultural tradition that has in the corresponding religion its highest expression and its ultimate foundation.

      Lionel:
      The reference is to liberal theologians some in dissent, Fr.John Hicks etc.

      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:
      In Mystici Corporis Pope Pius XII does not say that these cases are explicit for us, visible to the naked eye for them to be exceptions extra ecclesiam nulla salus.These cases could exist and being implicit for us are compatible with the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

      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 supported Fr.Leonard Feeney on doctrine/dogma. It referred to ‘the dogma’ the ‘infallible teaching’. The text of the dogma does not mention any exceptions. It faulted Fr.Leonard Feeney for disobedience/discipline and not for heresy.

      If he was condemned for heresy it would mean that the Holy Office had made an objective mistake assuming there are known exceptions to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.

      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:
      ‘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)..’
      Either way it would be known only to God. Are you implying that this is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was traditionally known?

      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:
      ‘those who know the necessity of the Church for salvation’ and those in invincible ignorance are known only to God.We do not know any such case in 2014. Are you implying that this is an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma by Fr.Leonard Feeney ?

      In this way the council aligned itself in continuity with the teaching of Pius XII…,

      Lionel:
      Yes. Vatican Council II is in accord with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known to the saints Robert Bellarmine, St.Francis Xavier, St.Francis of Assisi, St.Anthony Marie Clare, St.Maximillian Kolbe …

      • Michael B Rooke

        The term ‘Cushing-Jesuit Factual Error’ appears to have been invented by Lionel Andrades in 2009.

        Under that title Lionel Andrades has written a book and blogged on many sites both against the Society of St Pius X and against the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

        Lionel then makes an attack on Cardinal Ratzinger.

        “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. …..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.

        Lionel:
        They unknowingly used the Cushing-Jesuit Factual Error.”

        My view as a mere voice from the pew is that Lionel Andrades is unwittingly or deliberately spreading confusion.

  • George D

    The SSPX are schismatic because they do not accept the second Vatican council as part of the church’s magisterium, and they believe Vatican 2 is not consistent with tradition because they interpret doctrine through the lens of heretical preconceptions.

    • Lionel Andrades

      George D

      The SSPX accept Vatican Council II as a historical reality. Bishop Bernard Fellay has said that they accept 95% of the Council.Similar to the Vatican Curia and the Left they interpret Vatican Council II with a factual error, the Cushing-Jesuit Factual Error. So Vatican Council II, for all, is a break with the past.
      Witout the CJFE there will be no heretical interpretation of Vatican Council II.
      I don’t think they consider themself to be in schism.

    • Gary

      I am not an SSPXer, but that is not correct. A schismatic is someone who contradicts the authority of a pope. The SSPX appeal to the authority of the Pope (i.e. pre-vatican II papal statements) to point out the subtle errors contained in the Second Vatican II which is merely a pastoral council not a doctrinal one. The SSPX do not deny any doctrine of the Catholic faith – so please name what exactly these ‘heretical preconceptions’ are ? I wish people would stop repeating the same old canards on the SSPX without backing up their spurious claims.

  • Sparxz

    Really glad to see this blog, get involved in this discussion, as it is important, and increasingly important,
    as it touches deeply on the identity of the Catholic Church and the true mission of the Catholic Church which is to save souls
    in Christ through the Church. This has little chance of being published in the so-called Catholic Papers with fair treatment.

    Many in Norvos Ordoism and Traditionalist Catholics misunderstand Sacramental grace, and actual Grace.

    A person can seriously betray Christ even after receiving Sacramental Grace eg Judas at the last Supper.
    the Anglicans thought they could keep the Mass and dump the Authority of the Church and good faith.

    While the Church has always taught that even before Christ came the first time, that God was transmitting
    his actual grace into the world to bring about the miracle of Faith as first demonstrated by God’s relationship
    established in Abraham.

    The purpose of the Actual Grace is bring a Soul into Sacramental Grace(while still being in the world), and from Sacramental Grace
    in the world, to eternal Worship of God in the Heavenly part of the same Catholic(Universal) Church.

    Misunderstandings on this subject are as common today as they were when Christ came himself to put us on the right track.
    As St Paul says we should welcome the purpose and teaching of first coming, so we do not dread the second coming(which will not be for teaching!).

  • Lynda

    Clearly, A. 29 is not stated in terms of an exception to, but rather in terms of a more detailed refinement or explanation of, A. 27. A. 27 speaks of the Church per se, whereas A. 29 speaks of the “body” and “soul” of the Church, and states that if certain conditions subsist, including on the one hand, baptism outside of the Church or on the other hand, “baptism of desire”, in respect of a particular person, that person will attain salvation on the basis of unity with the “soul” of the Church, as opposed to the “body” of the Church (through which one is united in baptism). Without arguing the merits of A.29, it is clear that it is a rational and objective principle on its face.

    As to verifiabity in the case of a particular person, the conditions are not as easily verified in the case of a person to whom A. 29 applies as to a person who has been baptised in the Catholic Church. However, one can imagine circumstances whereby the satisfaction of the conditions could be objectively verified in the case of a particular person. It must be noted that even if a baptised Catholic person appears (to his confessor) to have made a full and sincere confession immediately before his death, it cannot be “known” with certainty that that person will attain salvation, as, for instance, the confessor may have been deceived. Only in certain very special cases does the Church claim to “know” that a specific individual has attained heaven – where the conditions for canonisation have been formally verified to have been met.

    Steve Martin’s book “Will Many be Saved?” is a good discussion of those who have not been baptised in the Church. It is reasonable to assert that it is much more difficult for a person to be saved outside of the body of the Church (through no fault of his own) than a person baptised within the Church (who has the graces of confession, the Eucharist, etc.).

    • Lionel Andrades

      Lynda

      How would you relate to concrete cases,for example, those having a vocation to the religious life in England?

      Would they have to accept that A. 29 contradicts A. 27 of the Catechism of Pope Pius X?

      Would they have to accept that Ad Gentes 7 is contradicted by Lumen Gentium 16?

      Here is Ad Gentes 7:
      Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church’s preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself “by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door.-Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II.

      Lumen Gentium 16
      Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.-Lumen Gentium 16.

      So would Vatican Council II contradict itself ? AG 7 would be contradicted by LG 16 ?

      Would vocations to the religious life in England have to accept this ? Is this what you also believe?

      Would it mean that young vocations would have to claim that they can see the dead-saved in invincible ignorance(LG 16) who are exceptions to all needing ‘faith and baptism’ for salvation in 2014?

      • Lynda

        Mr Andrades

        As I think I made clear in my original comment, A.29 does not appear on its face to contradict A.27.

        As for Lumen Gentium 16 (read as a whole, including doctrinal footnotes): although I think it is lacking in immediate specificity and perspicuity, and perhaps more pertinently, comprehensiveness – nonetheless, I think it can reasonably be interpreted (and therefore, must be) in conformity with the Deposit of Faith, and specifically, Ad Gentes 7 (in toto). It is clear that the intention is to restate that Divine Revelation is such that those essential elements of baptism in the Church necessary for salvation can be satisfied with respect to the person invincibly ignorant of the Gospel, in some other way, not fully understood, by the grace of God, provided certain other high threshold conditions are satisfied (which it is explicitly recognised are difficult to satisfy). I would add as an observation that in the case of most people today, the condition of invincible ignorance itself would be a high threshold to attain.

  • JabbaPapa [Julian Lord]

    ewww — careful, Missus Deacon, with Mister Andrades …

    Not only has Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus been interpreted since Antiquity as the doctrine that there is only ONE Afterlife, ONE Heaven, and ONE destination for Salvation (contrary to a widespread Heresy when it was first formulated, and contrary in even present times to the doctrines of mormonism), but more particularly, Mister Andrades is an extremist literalist (and nuisance-maker) whose personal views cannot be held up as being orthodox. From long experience with him at the Catholicism Pure And Simple blog.

    Handle With Care, Missus D !!!

    • JabbaPapa [Julian Lord]

      … because the doctrine concerns the Church of the Christ in the Afterlife, rather than the Catholic Church Militant.

      BTW :

      It is common knowledge that objectively we cannot see the dead who are in Heaven

      Objectively, this is a formal heresy, denying all saintly Apparitions, including those of the Holy Virgin Saint Mary.

      Objectively, Mister Andrades is denying the salvation of Moses and Abraham.

      Fr.Jean Marie Glleize says in this book that in Mystici Corporis Pope Pius XII says ‘ in the exceptional way one can be saved outside the visible limits of the Catholic Church.’ How can there be an exceptional way to the dogmatic teaching? We do not know any explicit, visible case which could be an exception. If there are no known exceptions how can there be an exceptional way.

      Fr.Gleize is making the same error

      In reality, Fr Gleize’s teaching in this particular is EXACTLY consistent with the Tradition, the Doctrine, and the Revelation, whereas Mister Andrades is overtly preaching against Church Dogma.

      Both the Prophets Elijah and Moses, neither of them Catholics in their lives, are KNOWN to be saved and in Christ’s Heaven, given that both Jewish Prophets appeared beside Jesus during the Transfiguration.

      • JabbaPapa [Julian Lord]

        And neither of these Prophets baptised BTW

      • Lionel Andrades

        Jabba:

        … because the doctrine concerns the Church of the Christ in the Afterlife, rather than the Catholic Church Militant.

        BTW :

        It is common knowledge that objectively we cannot see the dead who are in Heaven

        Lionel:
        The doctrine/dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus says all need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation. One can only convert while alive on earth.

        Objectively, this is a formal heresy, denying all saintly Apparitions, including those of the Holy Virgin Saint Mary.

        Lionel: In general we human beings cannot see the dead on earth. This is common sense.
        This is mentioned, since it is assumed that there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. In other words there are visible cases of the dead seen on earth.

        Objectively, Mister Andrades is denying the salvation of Moses and Abraham.

        Lionel:
        Before the Death and Resurrection Moses, Abraham and the saints of the Old Testament had to wait in ‘Abraham’s bosom’ before they could go to Heaven.

        Fr.Jean Marie Glleize says in this book that in Mystici Corporis Pope Pius XII says ‘ in the exceptional way one can be saved outside the visible limits of the Catholic Church.’ How can there be an exceptional way to the dogmatic teaching? We do not know any explicit, visible case which could be an exception. If there are no known exceptions how can there be an exceptional way.

        Fr.Gleize is making the same error

        In reality, Fr Gleize’s teaching in this particular is EXACTLY consistent with the Tradition, the Doctrine, and the Revelation, whereas Mister Andrades is overtly preaching against Church Dogma.

        Lionel:
        Fr.Gleize assumes Unitatis Redintigratio (3) is a known exception to the traditional teaching on other religions and Christian communities. It is an exception to the dogma on salvation for him.
        1) You and I cannot name any such case alive or who is going to be saved as such.
        2) We cannot cite any text in Vatican Council II which says these cases are visible for us in real life i.e we can see the dead who will be saved or are saved as such.
        3) Neither does Vatican Council II state that there are any exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

        Both the Prophets Elijah and Moses, neither of them Catholics in their lives, are KNOWN to be saved and in Christ’s Heaven, given that both Jewish Prophets appeared beside Jesus during the Transfiguration.

        Lionel:
        God the Father wants all people to enter the Catholic Church (CCC 845), the Church is the only Ark of Noah that saves in the Flood(CCC 845). The Church is a continuation of the Jewish religion. In 2014 every one needs to enter the Church with ‘faith and baptism’(AG7) to go to Heaven and avoid Hell. This is the normal, ordinary means of salvation. If someone is saved with the baptism of desire or some other means we accept it as a possibility. Though since these cases are not known to us they are irrelevant to the dogmatic teaching on salvation.
        So the Jewish prophets were saved after the Resurrection of the Jewish Messiah.It does not contradict the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.

    • Lionel Andrades

      Jabba:

      Mister Andrades is an extremist literalist (and nuisance-maker) whose personal views cannot be held up as being orthodox. From long experience with him at the Catholicism Pure And Simple blog.

      Lionel:
      Mister Andrades is affirming Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7) which says all need faith and baptism for salvation. AG 7 is also included in the Catechism of the Catholic Church under the sub title Outside the Church there is no Salvation.

      So Vatican Council II is in accord with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, thrice defined, and affirmed by the popes and saints.

      Mister Andrades doesn’t have anything new to add to it.

  • Lionel Andrades

    Thank you.
    Lionel

  • Nicolas Bellord

    Lionel: This is clearer than your previous comments. In summary I think you are saying that the SSPX claim that baptism of desire is visible in the flesh i.e. we can identify who is saved by baptism of desire. I agree with you that this seems wrong. However what is the significance of the SSPX claim and where does it lead? It just seems a rather strange claim to me and I do not see the implications.

    • Lionel Andrades

      Nicolas Bellord

      Lionel: This is clearer than your previous comments. In summary I think you are saying that the SSPX claim that baptism of desire is visible in the flesh i.e. we can identify who is saved by baptism of desire. I agree with you that this seems wrong.

      Lionel:
      Yes ! Nicholas.

      Nicholas Bellord:
      However what is the significance of the SSPX claim and where does it lead? It just seems a rather strange claim to me and I do not see the implications.

      Lionel:
      There are so many implications Nicholas. I don’t know where to start from.
      They are also aware of this error but they do not want to admit it or change.
      This would result in a fundamental and major change in their interpretation of Vatican Council II. It could also be crisis for the Vatican Curia.
      The SSPX would also have to re-interpret the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston relative to fr.Leonard Feeney.
      It would mean the Novus Ordo Mass for the SSPX would be traditional in its thelogy and doctrine.etc,etc.

  • Catholic at Rome

    Mrs. Donnelly,

    You have to take some care with those like Lionel who want to defend the followers and doctrines of Fr. Feeney, SJ. Fr. Feeney was a famous apologist from Boston USA, but in his writings he often switched between senses of terms. Thus, his personal doctrine about Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus in certain points veered away from the teaching of the Fathers.

    True, Outside of the Church there is no salvation, is a dogma of the Church, and this means not only that all salvation which comes alone from Christ’s merits, flows from His Church, the Catholic Church, but also that you can only receive it if you die a faithful member of that Church. However, Fr. Feeney went further and denied the Patristic teaching, which is common teaching today, approved by such doctors of the Church as St. Alphonsus dei Liguori, that there is an extraordinary case in which someone dies with the grace necessary to be saved, without however being a visible member of the Catholic Church. This is called “Baptism of Desire” in English, but in Latin, baptismus flaminis, or more correctly translated as, “Baptism by the flame of inspiration”. It is postulated to occur when the Holy Spirit inspires one with faith in Crist with such purity that if he knew of the Church he would have joined the Church. But invinceable ignorance, the human incapacity to know the Church and overcome this ignorance, intervenes, and thus it results that the man dies in the grace of God, but visibly outside the Church.

    In Explaining this hypothetical case as with the expression Baptism of Desire many have fallen into error, because they do not have recourse to the patristic teaching, and the strict meaning of the terms underwhich it must be explained. It is not, as the followers of Fr. Feeney say, a way of replacing Baptism by water, which is an remains according to the Teaching of Christ the only means, visible and invisible, for becomming a member of Christ’s Church, when the one receiving this, desires this; for a man baptised in the Protestant Church desiring to be a member of that Church, does not desire to be a member of the true and only Church, and thus the effect of Baptism, which is inherent in the sacrament is thwarted. Baptism of Desire is not a sacrament, nor does any man know with certainty whether he himself or another has received such a grace from the Holy Ghost.

    But theologians commonly say, so as to affirm the pre-eminence of the action of the Holy Spirit and the essential efficacy of sanctifying grace, that if such a case were to exist, then the movement of grace given by the Holy Spirit would alone be sufficient to save the man, and ipso facto make him a member at death in the Church triumphant or suffering, though he was never a visible member of the Church militant.

    Thus there is no reason to condemn the fathers of the SSPX on this score, who have sought to eradicate the exaggerations and errors spread by many disciples of Fr. Feeney, who, like them, are right in holding fast to the Ancient Roman Rite.

    • Lionel Andrades

      You have to take some care with those like Lionel who want to defend the followers and doctrines of Fr. Feeney, SJ.
      Lionel:

      Lionel is not a member of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the community of Fr.leonard Feeney who are recognized by the Catholic dioceses of Worcester and Manchester. In Worcester they have full canonical status.Neither am I using their apologetics.Though I support them. Call me a sympathiser.
      I am not presenting a new theology. I am here basically making a philosophical observation. I am saying that we cannot see the dead- saved with the baptism of desire. So one should specify. When the term baptism of desire is used , does it mean visible for us baptism of desire or invisible for us baptism of desire?

      Fr. Feeney was a famous apologist from Boston USA, but in his writings he often switched between senses of terms. Thus, his personal doctrine about Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus in certain points veered away from the teaching of the Fathers.

      Lionel:
      veered away from the teaching of the Fathers?
      He was affirming the traditional interpretation of the dogma according to the saints and popes over centuries. None of them referred to explicit for us baptism of desire. The text of the dogma does not mention any exceptions.

      True, Outside of the Church there is no salvation, is a dogma of the Church, and this means not only that all salvation which comes alone from Christ’s merits, flows from His Church, the Catholic Church, but also that you can only receive it if you die a faithful member of that Church.

      Lionel:
      ‘all salvation which comes alone from Christ’s merits, flows from His Church’…,
      True and we physically cannot see any of these cases on earth. So why mention it. Are you implying that we can see these cases and they are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma?

      However, Fr. Feeney went further and denied the Patristic teaching, which is common teaching today, approved by such doctors of the Church as St. Alphonsus dei Liguori, that there is an extraordinary case in which someone dies with the grace necessary to be saved, without however being a visible member of the Catholic Church. This is called “Baptism of Desire” in English, but in Latin, baptismus flaminis, or more correctly translated as, “Baptism by the flame of inspiration”. It is postulated to occur when the Holy Spirit inspires one with faith in Crist with such purity that if he knew of the Church he would have joined the Church. But invinceable ignorance, the human incapacity to know the Church and overcome this ignorance, intervenes, and thus it results that the man dies in the grace of God, but visibly outside the Church.

      Lionel:
      In the book The Bread of Life we have Fr.Leonard Feeney agreeing that a catechumen could be saved with implicit desire . He would have justification, as such,and this would be followed by the baptism of water. The baptism of water would be necessary for salvation.
      Anyway, with the baptism of water or without it, the baptism of desire is not a visible exception.So why mention it? Are you implying it is an exception?

      In Explaining this hypothetical case as with the expression Baptism of Desire many have fallen into error, because they do not have recourse to the patristic teaching, and the strict meaning of the terms underwhich it must be explained. It is not, as the followers of Fr. Feeney say, a way of replacing Baptism by water, which is an remains according to the Teaching of Christ the only means, visible and invisible, for becomming a member of Christ’s Church, when the one receiving this, desires this; for a man baptised in the Protestant Church desiring to be a member of that Church, does not desire to be a member of the true and only Church, and thus the effect of Baptism, which is inherent in the sacrament is thwarted. Baptism of Desire is not a sacrament, nor does any man know with certainty whether he himself or another has received such a grace from the Holy Ghost.

      Lionel:
      I repeat I am not referring to theology. I do not have a problem with the baptism of desire or being saved in invincible ignorance. I am saying that they are irrelevant to this issue since they are known only to God.
      I affirm implicit for us baptism of desire. I deny explicit for us baptism of desire. What about you?

      But theologians commonly say, so as to affirm the pre-eminence of the action of the Holy Spirit and the essential efficacy of sanctifying grace, that if such a case were to exist, then the movement of grace given by the Holy Spirit would alone be sufficient to save the man, and ipso facto make him a member at death in the Church triumphant or suffering, though he was never a visible member of the Church militant.

      Lionel:
      Fine. But how is this relevant to the dogma when there are no known cases in 2014. So every one in 2014 needs to convert into the Church for salvation and you do not know any exception.

      Thus there is no reason to condemn the fathers of the SSPX on this score, who have sought to eradicate the exaggerations and errors spread by many disciples of Fr. Feeney, who, like them, are right in holding fast to the Ancient Roman Rite.

      Lionel:
      None of the Church Fathers have said that the baptism of desire is explicit for us.
      Implicit baptism of desire, known only to God is acceptable and is not an exception to the literal and traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

  • Catholic at Rome

    Finally, in this discussion of Baptism as necessary, one must distinguish between necessary by a necessity of means and necessary by a necessity of precept, and necessary by a necessity of being. Baptism by water is the sacrament precepted by Christ for salvation: as a sacrament it is necessary by a necessity of precept. The common teaching regarding Baptism of desire, holds that Baptism by water is not necessary absolutely by a necessity of being, and that there exists an except to the precept to receive the Sacrament though there is no exception to the fundamental grace and act required to receive the Sacrament: namely to the grace of faith and penance with justification and sanctifying grace.

    For those who don’t see the theological necessity for affirming the efficacy of the baptismus flaminis, they fall into denying its underlying truths, namely the primacy of the Holy Spirit’s action in giving the grace of faith and penance, in justifying a sinner, and in saving the elect; the universality of Christ’s merits, the limitations of human ignorance, etc. However, on the side of those who attacked Fr. Feeney and many of his disciples, there is often lost the appreciation for the universality of God’s Providence, which should be presumed to provide all necessary occasions for salvation to the Elect, and the terrible justice of God which ought to punish every failing to be faithful to God’s Providential designs, howsoever small, a Justice which has the right to damn a man, even for a venial fault, since salvation is simply and purely a gift, and never in se merited prior to justification; even though for those justified, one can by good works, faith and charity, merit salvation, for this is the blessed wonder which grace effects, the collaboration in one’s own salvation (de condigno) and that of others (de congruo).

    • Lionel Andrades

      Catholic at Rome
      Finally, in this discussion of Baptism as necessary, one must distinguish between necessary by a necessity of means and necessary by a necessity of precept, and necessary by a necessity of being. Baptism by water is the sacrament precepted by Christ for salvation: as a sacrament it is necessary by a necessity of precept. The common teaching regarding Baptism of desire, holds that Baptism by water is not necessary absolutely by a necessity of being, and that there exists an except to the precept to receive the Sacrament though there is no exception to the fundamental grace and act required to receive the Sacrament: namely to the grace of faith and penance with justification and sanctifying grace.

      Lionel:
      ‘Finally, in this discussion of Baptism as necessary, one must distinguish between necessary by a necessity of means and necessary by a necessity of precept, and necessary by a necessity of being.’
      How is it relevant to the dogma? If any one is saved as such it would be visible only for God and invisible for us.You are referring to a possibility which I accept. You are referring to a hypothetical case. So it cannot be a concrete exception to the dogma.

      For those who don’t see the theological necessity for affirming the efficacy of the baptismus flaminis,
      Lionel:
      ‘don’t see the theological necessity for affirming the efficacy of the baptismus flaminis?’

      Why should it be denied ? It is not explicit.It is accepted.

      Lionel:
      ‘they fall into denying its underlying truths, namely the primacy of the Holy Spirit’s action in giving the grace of faith and penance, in justifying a sinner, and in saving the elect;..’

      Yes the Holy Spirit could give the grace of faith and penance necessary for salvation. However it would be false to imply that the Holy Spirit teaches that these cases are visible to us and so are a known exception to the the dogma on salvation. The Holy Spirit cannot teach irrationality.

      the universality of Christ’s merits, the limitations of human ignorance, etc. However, on the side of those who attacked Fr. Feeney

      Lionel:
      I have not come to this issue through any of Fr.Leonard Feeney’s communities.I can discuss this issue witout any reference to Fr.Leonard Feeney.I have cited magisterial texts to support my view.

      and many of his disciples, there is often lost the appreciation for the universality of God’s Providence, which should be presumed to provide all necessary occasions for salvation to the Elect, and the terrible justice of God which ought to punish every failing to be faithful to God’s Providential designs, howsoever small, a Justice which has the right to damn a man, even for a venial fault, since salvation is simply and purely a gift, and never in se merited prior to justification; even though for those justified, one can by good works, faith and charity, merit salvation, for this is the blessed wonder which grace effects, the collaboration in one’s own salvation (de condigno) and that of others (de congruo).

      Lionel:
      Fr.Leonard Feeney’s communities too like the SSPX and liberals have been interpreting Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition and especially the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
      They have correctly affirmed the dogma and said there are no exceptions.However when it came to Vatican Council II they assumed that LG 16 etc were exceptions to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
      The SSPX have never affirmed the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They have always said there are known exceptions. So we must give the St.Bendict Centers in the USA credit here.

  • peter

    Lionel
    Are you saying that there is no salvation outside the catholic church whatsoever?

    Out of interest what do think about the document ‘From Conflict to Communion’ on Lutheran/Catholic relations and Pope Benedict’s words to Sigrid Spath?

    peter

    • Lionel Andrades

      Peter:
      Are you saying that there is no salvation outside the catholic church whatsoever?

      Lionel:
      I am saying that Vatican Council II (AG 7) says all need ‘faith and baptism’ for salvation. So this means the majority of non Catholics who die without faith and baptism are oriented to Hell at the time of death, if they have not converted into the Catholic Church.This teaching is also confirmed by the Catechism 1993(CCC 846), Dominus Iesus(20), the Catechism of Pope Pius X etc. So it is not a personal view.
      In Heaven there are only Catholics, who have died without mortal sin on their soul and who had faith and baptism.

      Peter
      Out of interest what do think about the document ‘From Conflict to Communion’ on Lutheran/Catholic relations and Pope Benedict’s words to Sigrid Spath?

      Lionel:
      Lutherans and other Protestants do not have Catholic Faith, which includes the faith and moral teachings of the Catholic Church and the Sacraments through which God saves.They are outside the Church.

  • Charles Byrne

    I don’t see any direct quotations from Bishop Fellay or any of the other priests in question. I do not find the alleged quotation of Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis. Is this a direct quotation, from where? If you are going to accuse someone of error, you have to clearly reference the text in question.

    • Lionel Andrades

      Charles Byrne
      I don’t see any direct quotations from Bishop Fellay or any of the other priests in question. I do not find the alleged quotation of Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis. Is this a direct quotation, from where? If you are going to accuse someone of error, you have to clearly reference the text in question.

      Lionel:

      1.

      The SSPX official website has approved articles on two web pages written by Fr.Francois Laisney and Fr.Joseph Pfieffer ( now SSPX-SOS) with the same objective error. It is assumed that we can physically see cases of the baptism of desire for them to be exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation and also to 27 Q of the Catechism of Pope Pius X.It is common knowledge that objectively we cannot see the dead who are in Heaven.Bishop Fellay has approved these articles by the SSPX priests.Also these two articles deal with theology and do not mention that philosophically we cannot see the dead-saved. So there are no known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

      2.

      The SSPX General Chapter statement says:

      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…’

      The General Chapter Statement says :

      The Society continues to uphold the declarations and the teachings of the constant Magisterium of the Church in regard to all the novelties of the Second Vatican Council which remain tainted with errors…

      Bishop Bernard Fellay and the General Chapter members did not state that it was Vatican Council II itself which says ‘outside ‘ the Church ‘ there is no salvation nor possibility to find the means leading to salvation..’.

      3.
      The Superior General of the SSPX has permitted books to be sold by the SSPX with this same factual error. The error is there in a book written by Fr.Jean Marie Gleize . Bishop Fellay wrote the preface and recommended this book.

      4.

      ‘the society (SSPX) is known as a strong defender and proponent of the Tridentine Mass, along with pious practices, beliefs, customs and religious discipline often associated with the period before the Second Vatican Council, which the society believes promoted erroneous’-Wikipedia

      ‘associated with the period before the Second Vatican Council ?’

      Bishop Bernard Fellay the Superior General of the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) has made a doctrinal error in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.He uses the Cushing-Jesuit Factual Error and is unaware of it. So Vatican Council emerges for the SSPX as heretical.

      Bishop Fellay cannot issue a clarification when such reports appear in the media since he assumes there are known exceptions in Vatican Council II to all Tradition.

      5.

      Similarly the secular, left media says Vatican Council II has changed Church’s teaching with regard to other religions.

      This is false. Yet Bishop Bernard Fellay cannot say that there is no text in Vatican Council II to support this error. Since Bishop Fellay himself makes the same error in the interpretation of the Council. He assumes all references to salvation (LG 16) etc are not invisible for us but visible .They are not hypothetical but de facto known in the present times.

      Similarly when it is said that Nostra Aetate has changed Church teaching, Bishop Fellay cannot show that this is not true because of the Cushing-Jesuit Error which is common in the SSPX.
      -Lionel Andrades

      Charles Byrne
      I do not find the alleged quotation of Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis.

      Lionel:
      Fr.Jean Marie Gleaze has mentioned Mystici Corporis. He indicates that Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis mentioned exceptions to the traditional interpretation on the dogma. Bishop Bernard Fellay wrote the preface for this book.

  • Benedict Carter

    Sorry Lionel, but try as I might, I cannot follow your banter.

    This implicit vs. explicit – any chance of some concrete examples, so it’s easier to follow?

    • JabbaPapa [Julian Lord]

      Ben, I’ve had loooooong experience with this individual’s false doctrines concerning Salvation, and in a nutshell, he’s suggesting that nobody can possibly be saved without visible conversion in this world to the Catholic Church, which is to deny God’s Sovereign Power to save whomsoever He desires, to deny the Mystery of the salvation of those in situation of invincible ignorance or with a secret desire for baptism in their hearts and souls, as well as to deny the doctrine of the Catholic Church in these matters — all on the basis of his stubborn misinterpretation of the doctrine Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

      Scripture itself and such Church Fathers as Saint Augustine and so many others among the Saints in Heaven stand in straightforward denial of Lionel’s false teachings.

      I think it even might constitute a deeper misunderstanding on his part of the Credo itself — “Credo in unum Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, factorem caeli et terrae, visibilium omnium et invisibilium” ; as he’s denying the invisible means of Salvation that God in His Mercy and Charity can provide in the secrecy of their souls to those who are not Catholics through no active fault of their own making.

      That the Catholic Church is the only fully authentic means of Salvation in this world is 100% certain, but God’s own Sovereignty in ALL things is not limited by this fact, nor does it prevent the existence of some far more imperfect expressions of God’s call to salvation through His Church, given that whatever of Truth can be found in such imperfect non-Catholic teachings is anyway always derived from the Revelation as it has been entrusted by God to His Catholic Church.

    • Lionel Andrades

      Benedict Carter

      The box of mangoes

      If in a box of mangoes there is an apple , the apple is an exception because it is there. It exists there. If it was not there it would not be an exception.

      To be an exception it has to be visible and known and different.

      When it is not visible, known and existing it is not an exception.

      I do not know any person; I cannot see anyone in heaven or on earth saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance.These cases are not visible to me but are known only to God i.e if there was such a case .So they cannot be an exception to any thing.

      Jesus reaffirmed the necessity of faith and baptism for salvation (Vatican Council II, Ad Gentes 7). I cannot see any exception in 2014.

      In theory is is possible to be saved as such, in practise, in real life, there are no such cases.

      So when Vatican Council II (LG 14) says those who know that the Church is founded by God , through Jesus Christ but do not enter will be damned, is this something implicit or explicit for you?

      Vatican Council II (LG 16) refers to those who through no fault of their own have not had the Gospel preached to them and who have been leading a good life and so could be saved . Is this subjective or objective for us?

      When the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846 indicates all who are saved in another religion are saved through Jesus and the Church, do we know of any such case?

      Are these cases invisible or visible for you?

      When the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846 indicates that those who are saved in another religion are saved through Jesus and the Church , do we know of any such case?

      Are these cases invisible or visible for you?

      When the Catechism (1257 The Necessity of Baptism) says God is not limited to the Sacraments, is it referring to hypothetical cases or defacto, known- to- us people in 2014?

      Similarly those saved with the seeds of the Word(AG 11), imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3) are explicit for us or explicit only for God?

      Would Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits of Boston know the name and surname of an exception to all needing faith and baptism for salvation?

      Was there a known case to refute Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston?

      Could those saved through the ‘good and holy’ things in their religion (NA 2) be relevant or an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?

      Could any reader of Protect the Pope give me an example of an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, mentioned in Vatican Council II ?
      -Lionel Andrades

  • Wake up England

    “Before his senseless stocks and stones
    the heathen offers up his prayers;
    how better far advised are we
    who worship rather stocks and shares”

    Anon.

  • Catholic at Rome

    Peter,

    Yes, there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church whatsoever, for without faith and charity it is impossible to be saved: faith to believe all that God has revealed, and charity to love God in accepting and submitting to all that He has revealed. You cannot do that anywhere but in the Catholic Church. Since you are not capable of invicible ignorance, since you are reading this blog, this applies to you.

    But the theological sentence in favor of the baptism of desire in no way undoes this, since it only applies in cases where through no fault of one’s own, one desiring and resolving to receive Baptism in the Catholic Church dies beforehand, or in cases where through invincibile ignorance, one does not receive Baptism in the Catholic Church because one either does not know the Church, or does not know of Baptism.

    This has always been the faith of the Church. The Letter of Holy Office, dated 8 August ,1949, is not an authoritative non infallible exposition of the faith, nor is its opinion binding on the faithful. Suffice it to say that it very ambiguously discusses the theological point, and was sollicited by the Cardinal of Boston whose sister was married to a non-Catholic. Adults who know of the Catholic Church’s claim to be the one and only true Church of Christ, cannot appeal to baptism of desire to justify their obstinancy.

  • Lionel Andrades

    Benedict Carter

    Sorry Lionel, but try as I might, I cannot follow your banter.

    This implicit vs. explicit – any chance of some concrete examples, so it’s easier to follow?

    Lionel:
    For a thing to be an exceptions it must be different and it must exist.

    If there is a box of oranges with one apple in its midst, then the apple is an exception because it is is different and because it is there in the box.

    If there are five tall boys standing at a street corner and a short one joins them the is exception because he is not tall and because he is there at the street corner.

    If in a hospital ward there are 12 patients with tubercolosis and one is cured completely then he is an exception since he is different and is still there in the ward.

    The baptism of desire (without being followed by the baptism of water) is different from the baptism of water. But how can it be an exception to the teaching on all needing the baptism of water for salvation, when there is no case of the baptism of desire, which exists in our reality?

  • scary goat

    I also found the original post very hard to follow. I am not sure if Lionel is accusing Bishop Fellay of being too strict or too lenient? I get the impression that Lionel is wishing to defend the Feeney views from a more lenient approach by Bishop Fellay? Lionel, with all due respect, I think you may be tying yourself in knots by an overly literal and legalistic approach. I can see nothing wrong in what Bishop Fellay has to say on the matter. If I am reading the question wrong, even so I would say that although I cannot see any error in Bishop Fellay’s position, if I am missing something and he has made some error, does it matter? I don’t think bishops are infallible in every word they speak or write? A week or so ago we had +++ Dolan very publicly praising a gay athlete for coming out, following Pope Francis’ “who am I to judge?” trend….that is news worth worrying about. The musings of SSPX theologians on precisely how X,Y or Z should be understood doesn’t seem to be a major problem to me.

    • Lionel Andrades

      Scary goat:
      I also found the original post very hard to follow. I am not sure if Lionel is accusing Bishop Fellay of being too strict or too lenient?

      Lionel:
      I am saying that the Catechism of Pope Pius X says all need to enter the Church and there is no salvation outside the Church (27Q) while the SSPX on many of their media allege there is salvation outside the Church. They assume that those saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance are visible in the flesh for us in 2014 for them to be exceptions to 27Q.
      They extend this error to Vatican Council II and then claim that Vatican Council II is a break with the past.

      I get the impression that Lionel is wishing to defend the Feeney views from a more lenient approach by Bishop Fellay? Lionel, with all due respect, I think you may be tying yourself in knots by an overly literal and legalistic approach. I can see nothing wrong in what Bishop Fellay has to say on the matter. If I am reading the question wrong, even so I would say that although I cannot see any error in Bishop Fellay’s position, if I am missing something and he has made some error, does it matter? I don’t think bishops are infallible in every word they speak or write? A week or so ago we had +++ Dolan very publicly praising a gay athlete for coming out, following Pope Francis’ “who am I to judge?” trend….that is news worth worrying about. The musings of SSPX theologians on precisely how X,Y or Z should be understood doesn’t seem to be a major problem to me.

      • Lionel Andrades

        Scary goat:
        I get the impression that Lionel is wishing to defend the Feeney views from a more lenient approach by Bishop Fellay?

        Lionel:
        No.
        I am quoting Vatican Council II (AG 7), the Catechism of the Catholic Church (846) and Lumen Gentium 16 referring to implicit for being saved in invincible ignorance to support the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which happens to be that of Fr.Leonard Feeney too.

  • Lionel Andrades

    Wake up England

    This is a serious issue.It involves not only the SSPX and Bishop Bernard Fellay but others in the Church.

    Padre Pio Prayer Groups, Neo Catechumenal Way, Charismatic Renewal, all the religious communities, Diocesan priests…

    All salvation referred to in Vatican Council II i.e saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16), imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3).,seeds of the Word (AG 11), good and holy things in other religions (NA 2) are either:

    implicit or explicit for us.

    hypothetical or known in reality.

    invisible or visible in the flesh.

    dejure ( in principle) or defacto ( in fact ).

    subjective or objective.

    So one can choose from the left hand side or the right hand side column.

    If the right hand side column is chosen then Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and Tradition in general on other religions and Christian communities and churches. There are known exceptions in 2014 to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Cathlic Church. The dead- saved are visible.

    If the left hand side column is chosen then Vatican Council II does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus, nor Tradition on other religions and Christian communities and churches.

    Most people interpret Vatican Council II with the right hand side values.

    So the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance was never ever an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney, unless one is using the right hand side column.There were and are no known exceptions.

    In 2014 the Padre Pio Prayer groups, the Neo Catechumenal Way, Charismatic Renewal, all the religious communities and most of the Diocesan priests are using the irrational column in the interpretation of Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston 1949.
    -Lionel Andrades

  • Lionel Andrades

    Wake up England

    …and Monsignor Guido Pozzo

    The Secretary of Ecclesia Dei Vatican assisted at the ITC (1) and did not notice the factual error in “The Hope of Salvation for Infants who Die Without Being Baptized”. Like Cardinal Luiz Ladaria he was using the right hand column.

    All salvation referred to in Vatican Council II i.e saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16), imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3),seeds of the Word (AG 11), good and holy things in other religions (NA 2) are either:

    COLUMN A

    implicit
    hypothetical
    invisible
    dejure ( in principle)
    subjective

    COLUMN B

    explicit for us.
    known in reality.
    visible in the flesh.
    defacto ( in fact )
    objective.

    So one can choose from COLUMN A or B.

    If COLUMN B is chosen then Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and Tradition in general on other religions and Christian communities and churches. There are known exceptions in 2014 to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Cathlic Church. The dead- saved are visible.

    If the COLUMN A is chosen then Vatican Council II does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus, nor Tradition on other religions and Christian communities and churches.

    Most people interpret Vatican Council II with COLUMN B.

    So the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance was never ever an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney, unless one is using COLUMN B.There were and are no known exceptions.

    In 2014 the Padre Pio Prayer groups, the Neo Catechumenal Way, Charismatic Renewal, all the religious communities and most of the Diocesan priests, the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX), Archbishop Gerhard Muller, Archbishop Augustine Di Noi, Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J and Monsignor Guido Pozzo (1) are using the irrational column in the interpretation of Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston 1949.- Lionel Andrades

    1.

    * PRELIMINARY NOTE: The theme “The Hope of Salvation for Infants who Die Without Being Baptized” was placed under the study of the International Theological Commission. In order to prepare for this study, a Committee was formed comprised by Most Rev. Ignazio Sanna, Most Rev. Basil Kyu-Man Cho, Rev. Peter Damien Akpunonu, Rev. Adelbert Denaux, Rev. Gilles Emery, OP, Msgr. Ricardo Ferrara, Msgr. István Ivancsó, Msgr. Paul McPartlan, Rev. Dominic Veliath, SDB (President of the Committee), and Sr. Sarah Butler, MSTB. The Committee also received the collaboration of Rev. Luis Ladaria, SJ, the Secretary General of the International Theological Commission, and Msgr. Guido Pozzo, the Assistant to the ITC, as well as other members of the Commission. The general discussion on the theme took place during the plenary sessions of the ITC, held in Rome. In October 2005 and October 2006. This present text was approved in forma specifica by the members of the Commission, and was subsequently submitted to its President, Cardinal William Levada who, upon receiving the approval of the Holy father in an audience granted on January 19, 2007, approved the text for publication. – Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without being baptized

    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

  • Cordelio

    “The most disturbing event at Boston was a visit to a Father Feeney S.J. at Harvard. Mrs Luce told me he was a saint & apostle and on no account to be missed. He has a Catholic Center, as it is called, just outside the University campus & has made some showy converts. Well when I asked about him in Boston clergy and laymen alike looked embarrassed and said: ‘We haven’t seen him for a long time’. I went one morning by appointment & found him surrounded by a court of bemused youths of both sexes & he stark, raving mad. All his converts have chucked their Harvard careers and go to him only for all instruction.

    He fell into a rambling denunciation of all secular learning which gradually became more and more violent. He shouted that Newman had done irreparable damage to the Church then started on Ronnie Knox’s Mass in Slow Motion saying ‘To think that any girl of 12 could have this blasphemous and obscene book put into her hands’ as though it were Lady Chatterley’s Lover. I asked if he had read it. ‘I don’t have to eat a rotten egg to know it stinks’.

    Then I addressed him in strong words. His court sat absolutely aghast at hearing their holy man addressed like this. And in unbroken silence I walked out of the house. I talked to some Jesuits later & they said that he is disobeying the plain orders of his provincial by staying there. It seemed to me he needed an exorcist more than an alienist. A case of demonic possession & jolly frightening.”

    Evelyn Waugh writing to Laura in 1948 regarding a visit to Father Feeney during a trip to the U.S.A.

  • Thank you to everyone who has posted further comments on this thread. I am very sorry but I have not had time to read through them yet. I am finding some of them particularly hard to follow and many of them are very long. I hope to be able to look at these later in the week…

    • Why don’t you stop moderating every comment and only delete those who require deletion. That’s what we do over at Catholic Truth and it works fine. It’s ridiculous to waste time moderating every comment.

  • Lionel Andrades

    Lynda

    Mrs. Donnelly, You have to take some care with those like Lionel who want to defend the followers and doctrines of Fr. Feeney, SJ. Fr. Feeney was a famous apologist from Boston USA, but in his writings he often switched between senses of terms. Thus, his personal doctrine about Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus in certain [...]

    Lionel:

    Lynda,the followers of Fr.Leonard Feeney have full canonical status in the Catholic diocese of Worcester.
    The followers of Fr.Leonard Feeney are Catholics.Their religious Congregations are recognized by the Catholic Church in the dioceses of the USA. They hold the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as did the Church Councils , popes and saints St.Thomas Aquinas, Maximillian Kolbe and Fr.Leonard Feeney.
    I affirm Vatican Council II and support the traditional dogma,with text from Vatican Council II (AG 7) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (845,846),Dominus Iesus 20 etc. This is the teaching of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church and not just that of Fr.Leonard Feeney.

    Though unlike the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney, the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary,(and the SSPX and the Dioceses) I do not interpret Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition.
    This is because for me the baptism of desire, being saved in invincible ignorance(LG 16) etc are invisible for me.I accept them as possibilities which are visible only for God.They cannot be exceptions since we cannot know exceptions on earth; we cannot see the dead.

    When you realize that these cases are invisible, then you also would agree with the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney, since there would be no known exceptions.

    One can have it both ways- affirm implicit for us baptism of desire and the literal interpretaion of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney and the saints and popes over the centuries.

  • Lionel Andrades

    Thank you! I think you are doing a great job.
    Since there has been so much of misinformation and propaganda in the secular media on Fr.Leonard Feeney I can imagine the response of many good Catholics, to what they have been reading in the liberal media.
    In my posts I am refer to reason and then to magisterial texts interpreted rationally.
    In Christ
    Lionel

  • I have only skimmed this article and not read all the comments as I’m swamped right now, but I think I am correct in saying that Lionel Andrades is sedevacantist. I had to ask him to stop sending me his emails, for that reason.

    From my skimming of the blog article, I think I’m correct in saying that Bishop Fellay is not directly quoted and since even my pea-brain has been able to grasp the teaching of the Church on baptism of desire, I guess he has been able to get it right, too.

    Anyone who has the desire to be baptised and dies before he is able to BE baptised, may be saved. That’s what is meant by “baptism of desire” – I’m sure that is what I was taught at school and I’ve never heard any SSPX priest say differently. I doubt very much if Bishop Fellay said anything differently either. I think Andrades, as is his wont, had jumped on the word “exception” and made it mean something unintended. I can well imagine using that word myself when explaining the teaching, forgetting about criticis who pounce on every word in nit-picking fashion.

    I’d pay no attention to the SSPX critics – usually either modernists or sedevacantists.

  • Lionel Andrades

    EditorCT
    I have only skimmed this article and not read all the comments as I’m swamped right now, but I think I am correct in saying that Lionel Andrades is sedevacantist. I had to ask him to stop sending me his emails, for that reason.

    Lionel:
    Lionel is not a sedevacantist. He does not have to be a sedevacantist since there is nothing in Vatican Council II which contradicts Tradition,unless you assume that the baptism of desire is a possibility of salvation AND ALSO known to us in the present times. If these cases are only possibilities, as I accept them, then they do not exist in the reality of us human beings to be an exception to the traditional teaching on all needing to convert into the Church for salvation and there being no exceptions.

  • Lionel Andrades

    EditorCT
    From my skimming of the blog article, I think I’m correct in saying that Bishop Fellay is not directly quoted and since even my pea-brain has been able to grasp the teaching of the Church on baptism of desire, I guess he has been able to get it right, too.

    Lionel:
    Please see the response to Charles Byrne above. Bishop Fellay approved the SSPX General Chapter Statement which affirmed the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and there being no exceptions.But he did not know that this was the very message of Vatican Council II. Then there are webpages on the official SSPX website by Fr.Francois Laisney who believes the baptism of desire is visible to us in real life.Then there are books being sold by the SSPX with the same error of assuming the dead-saved with the baptism of desire are known exceptions to Tradition. These are all acts of omission or commission.
    The secular media states Nostra Aetate has changed the Catholic Church’s traditional teaching on other religions. The SSPX agrees and criticizes Vatican Council II. Not knowing there is nothing in the Council to contradict the traditional teaching on other religions.

  • Lionel Andrades

    EditorCT
    Anyone who has the desire to be baptised and dies before he is able to BE baptised, may be saved.

    Lionel:
    Yes he may be saved. Yes I agree with you.
    The baptism of desire is a possibility for salvation.

    EditorCT
    That’s what is meant by “baptism of desire” – I’m sure that is what I was taught at school and I’ve never heard any SSPX priest say differently.

    Lionel:
    The baptism of desire is not a problem for me.
    The issue is : is the baptism of desire invisible for us or visible for us ?Can we see these cases in real life or are they hypothetical only ?
    No SSPX priest wants to comment in public on this one. Privately they will agree with me.

    EditorCT
    I doubt very much if Bishop Fellay said anything differently either.

    Lionel:
    Bishop Fellay has never said that the baptism of desire is invisible for us.While he has approved books and web pages indicating that the baptism of desire is visible for us in real life.
    It is because he considers those dead and now saved in Heaven as being visible that he assumes Vatican Council II contradicts the traditional teaching on other religions and ecumenism.

    EditorCT

    I think Andrades, as is his wont, had jumped on the word “exception” and made it mean something unintended. I can well imagine using that word myself when explaining the teaching, forgetting about criticis who pounce on every word in nit-picking fashion.

    Lionel:
    It is common in the Catholic Church, this includes supporters of the SSPX, to say that the baptism of desire is an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney. This implies that there are known cases on earth saved with the baptism of desire.For it to be an exception the person must exist. So the conclusion is that every one does not have to a member of the Catholic Church for salvation. This is a new doctrine rejecting the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

  • Lionel Andrades

    Jabba Papa:

    Ben, I’ve had loooooong experience with this individual’s false doctrines concerning Salvation, and in a nutshell,

    Lionel:
    Ben, I have given concrete examples above in two posts.

    Jabba Papa:
    he’s suggesting that nobody can possibly be saved without visible conversion in this world to the Catholic Church,

    Lionel:
    He is suggesting that no body in 2014 (present times, defacto) can be saved outside the Church,
    1.Since we do not know of any such case.We cannot name any such case who does not need to convert into the Church for salvation.
    2. The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus says all need to convert into the Church.
    3. Vatican Council II (AG 7) says all need to convert with ‘faith and baptism’.
    4. Being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) etc are not known exceptions in 2014.

    Do you know someone in particular in 2014 who will be saved without having to convert into the Catholic Church in 2014?

    Jabba Papa:
    which is to deny God’s Sovereign Power to save whomsoever He desires,

    Lionel:
    God can save whomsoever he desires however when this person is saved it is known only to God. So it will not be an exception to all needing to convert into the Church for salvation in 2014.

    Jaba Papa:
    to deny the Mystery of the salvation of those in situation of invincible ignorance or with a secret desire for baptism in their hearts and souls,

    Lionel:
    I do not have to deny them since they are irrelevant to the traditional interpretation of the dogma . They are possibilities but now exceptions.

    Jabba Papa:
    as well as to deny the doctrine of the Catholic Church in these matters — all on the basis of his stubborn misinterpretation of the doctrine Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

    Lionel:
    That the baptism of desire cases saved in Heaven are visible in the flesh to us on earth is not a doctrine of the Church. The Holy Spirit could not teach this irrationality.

    Jabba Papa:
    Scripture itself and such Church Fathers as Saint Augustine and so many others among the Saints in Heaven stand in straightforward denial of Lionel’s false teachings.

    Lionel:
    They do not state that the baptism of desire is invisible or visible. Reason tells us that these cases are invisible for us.This is common knowledge and not an opinion of mine.

    Jabba Papa:
    I think it even might constitute a deeper misunderstanding on his part of the Credo itself — “Credo in unum Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, factorem caeli et terrae, visibilium omnium et invisibilium” ; as he’s denying the invisible means of Salvation that God in His Mercy and Charity can provide in the secrecy of their souls to those who are not Catholics through no active fault of their own making.

    Lionel:
    I repeat they can be saved but it would be a secret in 2014.A possibility is not a known reality for us humans. You cannot name any such case this year.
    Jabba Papa:
    That the Catholic Church is the only fully authentic means of Salvation in this world is 100% certain, but God’s own Sovereignty in ALL things is not limited by this fact, nor does it prevent the existence of some far more imperfect expressions of God’s call to salvation through His Church, given that whatever of Truth can be found in such imperfect non-Catholic teachings is anyway always derived from the Revelation as it has been entrusted by God to His Catholic Church.

    Lionel:
    No where in Revelation is it said that we can see the dead saved who are exceptions to revealed truth on salvation over centuries. There is no new Revelation to deny the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

  • Lionel Andrades

    Catholic at Rome:
    But the theological sentence in favor of the baptism of desire in no way undoes this, since it only applies in cases where through no fault of one’s own,…

    Lionel:
    And this case would be unknown to us.So the baptism of desire is in no way an exception or relevant to the literal and traditional understanding of extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known to the saints and to Fr.Leonard Feeney.

    Catholic at Rome:
    This has always been the faith of the Church. The Letter of Holy Office, dated 8 August ,1949, is not an authoritative non infallible exposition of the faith, nor is its opinion binding on the faithful. Suffice it to say that it very ambiguously discusses the theological point, and was sollicited by the Cardinal of Boston whose sister was married to a non-Catholic. Adults who know of the Catholic Church’s claim to be the one and only true Church of Christ, cannot appeal to baptism of desire to justify their obstinancy.

    Lionel:
    Adults who know of the Catholic Church’s claim to be the one and only true Church of Christ, cannot appeal to baptism of desire to justify their obstinancy ?

    Every one needs to enter the Church and we do not know any one who knows or does not know and who is going to be finally condemned or saved.

    • Lynda

      Of course, it would only be theoretically objectively verifiable in a particular case by an indepth authoritative investigation after the death. All the elements including invincible ignorance, supernatural faith in God in response to grace, leading an objectively moral life, up to death, would have to be shown beyond a reasonable doubt to have been satisfied before one could say that apparently such an individual would attain salvation. As I said above, except where there is supernatural confirmation of a Catholic having been saved, being in heaven, as determined by the Magisterium, or martyrdom has been proven, one cannot know that a particular Catholic (who for instance, made an apparently good confession immediately prior to death (the best scenario)) had attained salvation.

  • Lionel Andrades

    Jabba:
    10. Exclusivist ecclesiocentrism—the fruit of a specific theological system or of a mistaken understanding of the phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus—is no longer defended by Catholic theologians after the clear statements of Pius XII and Vatican Council II on the possibility of salvation for those who do not belong visibly to the Church (cf, e.g., LG 16; GS 22).

    Lionel:
    Exclusivist ecclesiocentrism is still the teaching of the Catholic Church before and after Vatican Council II since we do not know of any exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
    The traditional teaching stands.
    It is the liberal theologians who have not acknowledged AG 7 which says all need to convert with faith and baptism . They have also assumed that LG 16 is a visible, known exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney. If this was assumed by also Pope Pius XII then he made a factual mistake too.

    However in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 Pope Pius XII supports Fr.Leonard Feeney on doctrine/dogma when he refers to ‘the dogma’ the ‘infallible teaching’ and says it should be understood and interpreted as the Church does. For centuries the church taught ‘exclusivist ecclesiolcentrism’ and the text of ‘the dogma’ does not mention any exceptions nor considers the baptism of desire an exception.

  • Lionel Andrades

    Gary
    The SSPX do not deny any doctrine of the Catholic faith – so please name what exactly these ‘heretical preconceptions’ are ?

    Lionel:
    Gary the SSPX assumes that there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
    The SSPX assumes that the baptism of desire is visible to us in real life and so is an exception to Tradition.
    The baptism of desire can be accepted as a possibility and always invisible and implicit for us human beings. However for the SSPX it as visible and explicit for us.
    So this becomes a contradiction of the Catechism of Pope Pius X (27 Q) which says there is no salvation outside the Church.
    For the SSPX Vatican Council II is a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors etc since they assume that LG 16, LG 8 etc refer to known exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation.

    This is a rejection of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and a change in the Nicene Creed to “I believe in three known baptisms for the forgiveness of sin”

  • Lionel Andrades

    Lynda

    As I think I made clear in my original comment, A.29 does not appear on its face to contradict A.27.

    Lionel:

    Are you saying that a young vocation to the religious life in England must accept that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church,in 2014 and so every one must be a member of the Church to go to Heaven (27. Catechism of Pope Pius X) ?

    If there is any one saved with the baptism of desire this case in 2014 would be invisible for us and not visible.It would be accepted as a possibility but not as an exception to 27. So 29 is not an exception to 27. It is a possibility known only to God. It is accepted in principle, in faith, de jure. It is NOT KNOWN de facto, in reality and personally in 2014.

  • Lionel Andrades

    Lynda
    I think Ralph Martin’s treatment of LG 16 in his book, “Will Many be Saved?” and this essay – http://www.renewalministries.net/files/freeliterature/lumen_gentium_16_fcs.pdf – is helpful in understanding the text in conformity to the Deposit of Faith. (Apologies for referring to Ralph Martin as Steve Martin in earlier comment! Don’t you think there is a resemblance??!)

    Lionel:
    Ralph Martin assumes that we can see the dead saved in invincible ignorance and a good conscience.

    Ralph Martin fails to notice that Lumen Gentium 16 is not an exception to Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation. He also assumes that we can see the dead saved in invincible ignorance and a good conscience and so LG 16 is an exception to all needing to enter the Catholic Church to avoid Hell, with no known exceptions on earth.

    14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. -Lumen Gentium 14

    Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church’s preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself “by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. -Ad Gentes 7.

    Evangelisation is about being saved. The New Evangelisation must recognize doctrinally that all non Catholics are on the way to Hell unless they convert into the Catholic Church and there are no exceptions.

    We do not know whosoever knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary would refuse to enter could not be saved.

    Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.-Lumen Gentium 14.

    So this passage does not contradict the teaching that ALL need to enter the Church for salvation.

    When Vatican Council II mentions that a person can be saved with an ‘implicit intention’ this is known only to God and so is not an exception to ALL needing to enter the Church for salvation.-Lionel Andrades

    http://www.renewalministries.net/files/freeliterature/freeing_the_new_evangelization.pdf

    http://www.renewalministries.net/?module=Home

    • Lionel – I think this thread is getting a bit repetitive with little new information. I will consider closing it to comments soon.

      • Lionel Andrades

        M.Donnelly,

        The new information is:

        1.Sedevacantists can have a right to enter the Catholic Church once Vatican Council II is affirmed without the factual error.

        2. Young vocations to the religious life in England no more have to affirm an irrational statement. There is now a choice.

        3.Vatican Council II can be interpreted without the factual error approved by the Vatican.

        4.No Catholic diocese website in England mentions Ad Gentes 7 ( all need faith and baptism for salvation) and that LG 16 is not an exception to AG 7. This means all Protestants and non Catholics in 2014 need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation and there are no known exceptions.

        5.Most important of all the Pope approved a factual error.Without this error Vatican Council II is not a break with the past.

        I think this is the only thread on your blog with new information.

  • Lionel Andrades

    Michael B Rooke

    The term ‘Cushing-Jesuit Factual Error’ appears to have been invented by Lionel Andrades in 2009.

    Lionel:
    The term refers to an objective error, a factual error observable to any person. It refers to an irrationality that is independent of theology or even being a Catholic. One does not need to be a Catholic to know that we cannot see the dead on earth who are now in Heaven. Neither can we postulate that these deceased are visible exceptions to all needing to convert into the Church for salvation. This is fantasy. It is also upon this fantasy that theology has been built.
    This is conspicous fantasy among those who use it and it is widely used in the Catholic Church since the 1940′s.I have been referrring to this irrationality as Cushingism, the Cushing Error and the Cushing-Jesuit Factual Error.

    Michael B Rooke
    Under that title Lionel Andrades has written a book and blogged on many sites both against the Society of St Pius X and against the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

    Lionel:
    I have not written any book but I have been pointing out this factual error whenever I can. It is common for the SSPX to use this objective error and also it is used by cardinals and bishops of the Vatican Curia . It is an error made by the liberals and traditionalists.

    Michael B Rooke
    Lionel then makes an attack on Cardinal Ratzinger.

    “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. …..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.

    Lionel:
    They unknowingly used the Cushing-Jesuit Factual Error.”

    Lionel:
    With all due respect to Cardinal Ratzinger but the factual error is there on line for any one to read in two theological papers of the International Theological Commission. It is not with pleasure that I point this out. I hope a correction will be made.

    Michael B Rooke

    My view as a mere voice from the pew is that Lionel Andrades is unwittingly or deliberately spreading confusion.

    Lionel:
    My view is also a mere voice from the pew and I am calling attention to the confusion and irrationality which is objectively verifiable, on the ITC website. Similarly the error can be verified on the SSPX official website.

  • Lionel Andrades

    Lynda:
    Would you agree?

    Sedevacantists have a right to enter the Catholic Church once Vatican Council II is affirmed without the factual error.

    Sedevacantists have a right to enter the Catholic Church they are objecting to the interpretation of Vatican Council II with the Cushing-Jesuit Factual Error. Once this error is acknowledged and discarded Vatican Council II affirms the sedevacantist position on non Catholic religions and Christian communities and churches.

    The sedevacantists CMRI,MHFM are endorsing Tradition prior to Vatican Council II, since they assume Lumen Gentium 16( being saved in invincible ignorance) etc are cases known to us in 2014. For the Catholic dioceses, they are exceptions.On Wikipedia too, LG 16 is said to be an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus and no cardinal or bishop objects.

    Even the International Theological Commission, Vatican in two theological papers, ‘Christianity and the World Religions’ and ‘The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without being baptised’ wrongly implies that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are known exceptions to the literal and traditional interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation. ITC also assumes that this is the interpretation of Pope Pius XII.

    The sedevacantists are critical of this irrational interpretation of the Council, which results in a new and non traditional doctrine.

    The MHFM , for example, is even critical of the SSPX, for suggesting that there are exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation. They also contradict the Catechism of Pope Pius X (27 Q) with the same teaching.

    There could be a reconciliation with the sedevacantists, if the websites in England and the USA, would acknowledge:-
    1.They affirm Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.

    2. Vatican Council II (LG 16, LG 8 etc) refer to possibilities of salvation but these possibilities are not exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Tradition.Since it is impossible for us to know any ‘exception’ on earth. They are known only to God.

    3.The ordinary means of salvation is Catholic Faith and the baptism of water and not, being saved in invincible ignorance(LG 16), seeds of the Word(AG 11), good and holy things in other religions(NA 2), imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3) etc.

    The official websites of the Catholic dioceses today assume there are known exceptions to the defined dogma on salvation. This is heresy.

    With a factual error they are also re- interpreting the Nicene Creed ( “I believe in (not) one baptism (the baptism of water) for the forgiveness of sin, (but three known baptisms, water, blood and desire).

    They are also shelving the Athanasius Creed which says outside the Church there is no salvation since they assume outside the church there is salvation with LG 16, LG 8 etc.

    Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was protesting against this version of Vatican Council II (with the Cushing-Jesuit Factual Error) and he was excommunicated.Fr.Leonard Feeney was saying that there is no visible for us baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance and he was excommunicated.He was fortunate to have the excommunication lifted before he died, unlike Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

    There are so many Catholics who will die as sedevacantists since the Vatican and cardinals and archbishops in the dioceses have not acknowledged a factual error being used in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.

    The Americans Peter and Michael Dimond have emphasized the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in their sedevacantism. Often I have to tell people that I accept Vatican Council II with no known exceptions being mentioned in the Council to Tradition. So I am not a sedevacantist.

    If the Vatican could acknowledge that a rational interpretation of Vatican Council II means there are no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, this would be an opening for the sedevacantists and the beginning of a reconciliation.-Lionel Andrades

    • Lynda

      Mr Andrades

      I think you are using terms in a way that I don’t understand and that is not consistent with the texts or other commenters’ analysis; and this blog is not a suitable forum to attempt to agree terms even just between you and me.

      I’ll sum up my commentary by repeating that, in my opinion, the relevant provisions of the Pian Catechism and the VII documents can reasonably be read as not conflicting with each other on their face. Further, I can only rely on the authority of the Magisterium regarding the patristic and doctoral lineage of the magisterial interpretation of EENS as including a baptism into the Church by a means known only to God for persons who have not been baptised into the Church in the ordinary way while alive but who satisfy certain strict conditions. As I’ve said, this has been stated in the texts in a way that appears reasonable and I accept as a matter of authority that this interpretation conforms to the deposit of Faith as a whole and comes from the Holy Spirit. As to verification of actual attainment of salvation by a specific person where the baptism into the Church (for ease of reference) is the means other than the ordinary one, this is highly unlikely to be objectively verifiable beyond a reasonable doubt by the Church by dint of the circumstances that necessarily pertain.

      I apologise for any lack of clarity – my illness adversely affects my cogntive and communication abilities. Thank you for your patience, Mrs Donnelly!

      • Lynda – I am so sorry to see that you are ill. Thank you for your perseverance. Now praying for the speedy recovery and/or healing for you and Nick.

      • Lionel Andrades

        Mr Andrades

        I think you are using terms in a way that I don’t understand and that is not consistent with the texts or other commenters’ analysis; and this blog is not a suitable forum to attempt to agree terms even just between you and me.

        I’ll sum up my commentary by repeating that, in my opinion, the relevant provisions of the Pian Catechism and the VII documents can reasonably be read as not conflicting with each other on their face.

        Lionel:
        Yes Lynda we agree here they do not contradict each other.
        However if it is assumed that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are visible for us in the present times, then they will conflict.

        Lynda:
        Further, I can only rely on the authority of the Magisterium regarding the patristic and doctoral lineage of the magisterial interpretation of EENS as including a baptism into the Church by a means known only to God for persons who have not been baptised into the Church in the ordinary way while alive but who satisfy certain strict conditions.

        Lionel:
        Yes this is true. However once again this can be misinterpreted if it is assumed there is a visible for us baptism of desire instead of an invisible for us baptism of desire.We can accept the baptism of desire of course, but as being only visible for God and invisible for us.Then it does not contradict Tradition. It does not contradict the past Magisterium before 1940.

        Lynda:
        As I’ve said, this has been stated in the texts in a way that appears reasonable and I accept as a matter of authority that this interpretation conforms to the deposit of Faith as a whole and comes from the Holy Spirit.

        Lionel:
        Yes as long as the distinction between explicit and implicit, defacto and hypothetical is clear.

        Lynda:
        As to verification of actual attainment of salvation by a specific person where the baptism into the Church (for ease of reference) is the means other than the ordinary one, this is highly unlikely to be objectively verifiable beyond a reasonable doubt by the Church by dint of the circumstances that necessarily pertain.

        Lionel:
        It cannot be known to us humans so it is irrelevant to extra ecclesiam nulla salus and is not an exception.

        Lynda:
        I apologise for any lack of clarity – my illness adversely affects my cogntive and communication abilities. Thank you for your patience, Mrs Donnelly!

        Lionel:
        Lynda, thank you! for your patience and perseverance.

  • peter

    I’ve been away for a while and out of the conversation.

    Probably the most important writing of the council on this topic LG 16
    Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life.

    But more importantly by far, the words of Jesus in Matthew 25, his final words before turning to Jerusalem and his death
    “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

  • Lionel Andrades

    Peter:
    Probably the most important writing of the council on this topic LG 16
    Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life.

    Lionel:
    This passage is quoted often by the liberals who interpret being saved in invincible ignorance as being visible to us instead of invisible for us.
    Implicit for us LG 16 does not contradict Tradition (Catechism of Pope Pius X, extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Syllabus of Errors etc).
    Explicit for us LG 16 does contradict Tradition.
    It is the same LG 16 but one interpretation is rational ( we cannot see the dead -saved for them to be exceptions to the dogma), the other is irrational( we can see the dead-saved).

    LG 16 for me is part of a traditional Vatican Council II.

    Peter
    But more importantly by far, the words of Jesus in Matthew 25, his final words before turning to Jerusalem and his death
    “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

    True:
    At that time He also said ‘Go and proclaim the Good News to all mankind’. He who believes will be saved, he who does not believe will be condemned.(Mk.16:16).Millions will be condemned in England ?
    He has also said that all need faith and baptism in the Catholic Church for salvation (John 3:5).

  • Lionel Andrades

    Factual error approved by popes

    ’10. Exclusivist ecclesiocentrism—the fruit of a specific theological system or of a mistaken understanding of the phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus—is no longer defended by Catholic theologians after the clear statements of Pius XII and Vatican Council II on the possibility of salvation for those who do not belong visibly to the Church (cf, e.g., LG 16; GS 22)…’-International Theological Commission, Christianity and the World Religions

    Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis, cardinals and archbishops have not objected to this passage from Christianity and the World Religions by the International Theological Commission 1997.

    There is a factual mistake here.

    ‘the possibility of salvation for those who do not belong visibly to the Church (cf, e.g., LG 16…’)

    It is a possibility of salvation ,true, but it is not an exception to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. A possibility is not an exception.

    If a possibility was an exception then we could physically see the deceased saved in invincible ignorance(LG 16). This passage above implies that we can see the deceased now saved in Heaven for them to be exceptions to the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, according to Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston. It is a fact that we cannot see the dead.

    Pope Benedict XVI and Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J, the present Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican approved this passage.

    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.- Christianity and the World Religions 1997,International Theological Commission

    ‘and limits its validity to those who know the necessity of the Church for salvation’

    Again it is being implied that possibilities of salvation known only to God are personally known to us in the present times.

    Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation and we do not know any one how is going to be condemned or saved, who ‘knew’ about the Church or was in invincible ignorance.Possibilities are not known exceptions to the traditional teaching on salvation. Every one needs to enter the Church for salvation in 2014 and not only those who know. Those who know or do not know will be decided by God.

    The same objective error is made in the ITC’s The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without the being baptized’.

    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”’

    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”. – The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without the being baptized’, International Theological Commission,2007

    Being saved in invincible ignorance is a possibility it is not a known exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. These cases-saved are known only to God so they are irrelevant to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney. There is confusion here between what is objective and subjective, visible and invisible, known in realilty or hypotethetical.

    The popes and the ITC have assumed hypothetical cases are personally known exceptions. This is factually incorrect.-Lionel Andrades

  • Lionel Andrades

    Franciscans of the Immaculate are being forced to accept the papal error

    The International Theological Commission (ITC) has made a factual error in the interpretation of two theological papers and this error has to be accepted by Fr.Stefano Manneli F.I and the Franciscans of the Immaculate, in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.

    The Franciscan Friars are still not allowed to offer the Traditional Latin Mass in Rome. They first have to accept Vatican Council II interpreted with the factual error, the Cushing-Jesuit Factual Error.

    Popes have knowingly or unknowingly endorsed this error.

    They should be knowing about it by now and they are not acknowledging it in public.

    It is a fact that we cannot see the dead.They are visible only to God.So how can it be assumed that these deceased are an exception to Tradition ? How can they contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Catechism of Pope Pius X, the Syllabus of Errors etc ?

    If Lumen Gentium 16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance) is implicit for us then it is not an exception to Tradition.

    If LG 16 is explicit for us then it is a break with Tradition.

    The International Theological Commission has assumed that LG 16 is visible to us in real life, that we can see the dead who are now in Heaven. So the Council is a break with the past.It is based on this irrationality that the liberal ITC has postulated a theology of religions and a new ecclesiology.It was approved directly by Pope Benedict XVI. It also has the approval of Pope Francis who assumes LG 16 is a break with the past.This is the interpretation of the Jesuits, Dominicans, Franciscans etc.
    -LIonel Andrades

  • Lionel Andrades

    Taboo subject in Catholic dioceses of England and Wales

    Could the Rev.Deacon Nick Donnelly in Lancaster,England say Vatican Council II is in agreement with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Tradition ? Or, does he have to accept the factual error of the popes in two theological papers of the International Theological Commission?

    May be Nick Donnelly cannot discuss this issue in public.

    There is no official website in England which says those saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) are possibilities of salvation but not exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.They are hypothetical cases known only to God so they do not contradict Tradition (Catechism of Pius X , Syllabus of Errors etc).There are no exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II.

    No official website in England affirms the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the Church Councils, popes, saints and Fr.Leonard Feeney.

    The websites of the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales and those of the dioceses and Catholic organisations repeat the factual error. They allege there are known exceptions to Tradition.So with this objective error of being able to see the dead -saved, Vatican Council II is interpreted as a break with Tradition, a ‘revolution’, a New Revelation from God in the Catholic Church.Without the false premise the Council affirms Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston.

    However this is a taboo subject in England. If a Deacon or priest expresses it in public, teaches it in Catechism, he could be punished.

    The diocese of Lancaster for example, tells us through its website about what is the Church but there are such big and obvious gaps of information.

    What if Nick Donnelly and his wife at Lancaster affirm Vatican Council II in accord with extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Tradition and what if a priest in the diocese supports them in public? Would this be disunity?
    -Lionel Andrades

  • Michael B Rooke

    @ Lionel Andrades

    The only definition of Cushingism that I can find on the net is by Lionel Andrades.
    The definition by Lionel is “Cushingism says there is salvation outside the Church”

    It might be pointed out that such a view did not originate with Cardinal Cushing.

    Henry Edward Manning Archbishop of Westminster who was created Cardinal at the. Consistory on 15th March 1875 wrote

    ” There are men so narrow as to say that no soul among the heathen can be saved. The perfections of God the attributes of mercy, love, tenderness, justice, equity- all rise up against so dark a theology.

    …And two Pontiffs have condemned as heresy the two following assertions. That the heathen and the Jews and heretics receive no influence from Jesus Christ, but that their will is without help, that is without grace, by Alexander VIII. Again, that there is no grace given outside the Church was also condemned as heresy by Clement XI [5]. The work of the Holy Ghost even in the order of nature, so as to say, that is, outside of the Church of God and of revealed knowledge of Jesus Christ among the heathen- that working is universal in the soul of every individual; ”

    [5] Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum Würzburg 1874 nn 1162 and 1244

    The Internal Mission of the Holy Ghost Ash Wednesday ( 10 Feb ) 1875
    Page 4 et seq
    Internet link
    The Internal Mission of the Holy Ghost
    http://archive.org/details/a591685300mannuoft

    • Michael B Rooke

      There is more than one edition of the ‘Internal Mission of the Holy Ghost’ on the net and later editions as is the link provided include the preface pages as book page numbers rather than Roman numerals as in the earlier editions.

      The page number should be 19 rather than Page 4 from my working copy earlier edition.

    • Lionel Andrades

      Michael B Rooke:
      The only definition of Cushingism that I can find on the net is by Lionel Andrades.
      The definition by Lionel is “Cushingism says there is salvation outside the Church”

      It might be pointed out that such a view did not originate with Cardinal Cushing.

      Lionel:
      Cushing and the Jesuits at Boston in the 1940′s originated a known to us baptism of desire as an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

      The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance was part of the tradition in the Church centuries before Cushing.However it was always considered implicit for us and known only to God. So the Church Councils did not mention them as exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

      It was Cushing who assumed that this possibility was explicit for us. It was something known and nameable, for it to be relevant to the dogma on exclusive salvation.

      Implicit baptism of desire Yes!-Explicit for us baptism of desire is Cushingism.

      In a prepared statement for the press the former Jesuit(Fr.Leonard Feeney) added: “The conscience difficulty is that the diocese of Boston, under the auspices of Archbishop Cushing, and Boston College, under the auspices of Father John J. McEloney, S.J., both notably ignorant in the field of Catholic theology … are teaching that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church.” – Father Feeney Is Dismissed From Jesuit Order by Rome
      http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1949/10/29/father-feeney-is-dismissed-from-jesuit/

    • Lionel Andrades

      Michael B Rooke
      Henry Edward Manning Archbishop of Westminster who was created Cardinal at the. Consistory on 15th March 1875 wrote
      ” There are men so narrow as to say that no soul among the heathen can be saved. The perfections of God the attributes of mercy, love, tenderness, justice, equity- all rise up against so dark a theology.

      Lionel:
      ” There are men so narrow as to say that no soul among the heathen can be saved.( A SOUL CAN BE SAVED AS A POSSIBILITY. IT IS HOWEVER NOT AN EXPLICIT REALITY FOR US) The perfections of God the attributes of mercy, love, tenderness, justice, equity- all rise up against so dark a theology.

      …And two Pontiffs have condemned as heresy the two following assertions. That the heathen and the Jews and heretics receive no influence from Jesus Christ, but that their will is without help, that is without grace, by Alexander VIII.( THERE CAN BE GOOD AND HOLY THINGS IN OTHER RELIGIONS (NA 2)HOWEVER WE DO NOT KNOW ANY JEW OR HEATHEN SAVED OUTSIDE THE CHURCH AND WITHOUT THE BAPTISM OF WATER) Again, that there is no grace given outside the Church was also condemned as heresy by Clement XI [5](HYPOTHETICALLY IT IS POSSIBILE. IN REALITY WE DO NOT KNOW OF ANY CASE IN 2014). The work of the Holy Ghost even in the order of nature, so as to say, that is, outside of the Church of God and of revealed knowledge of Jesus Christ among the heathen- that working is universal in the soul of every individual; ”(YES THE HOLY SPIRIT CAN BE PRESENT OUTSIDE THE VISIBLE LIMITS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH FOR US HOWEVER WE CANNOT IMPLY THAT ANY KNOWN PERSON IS SAVED OR WILL BE SAVED AS SUCH. THIS IS KNOWN ONLY TO GOD. SO THIS IS NOT AN EXCEPTION TO ALL NEEDING TO CONVERT INTO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN 2014 TO GO TO HEAVEN AND AVOID HELL).

      p.S.Excuse the CAPS. I have used them for clarity since I am not familiar with the HTML tags yet.

      [5] Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum Würzburg 1874 nn 1162 and 1244

  • Lionel Andrades

    It’s O.K Mrs.Donnelly!Nick can discuss it when he returns.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>