A Catholic is not to give a donation to a person, or his organisation, when the person is in manifest mortal sin and his organisation is encouraging dissent, rebellion, falsehood and bringing a political ideology into the Catholic Church’s teachings which are obligatory for all to believe in.
Is it a mortal sin to knowingly give a donation to Jeffrey Mirus and Catholic Culture?
If you knew that a Catholic organisation works for aims that are not Catholic then you are cooperating in the evil actions of the organisation. Would it be a sin for you?
Jeffrey Mirus is President of Catholic Culture.He has been denying an ex cathedra dogma in public, he is changing its meaning and has placed a report on the Internet which maligns a priest who is faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church.
It is obligatory for all Catholics to firmly believe (Dominus Iesus 20) an ex cathedra dogma be it the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Mirus rebels in public. He is in public mortal sin. The subject is grave matter (See Creed, Updated Apologetics: extra ecclesiam nulla salus).He has been informed about his errors. Yet he places a report on the Internet, Tragic Errors of Fr. Leonard Feeney written by the late Fr. William Most and whose contents he supports through his writings in a column on the Catholic Culture website.
Mirus and Catholic Culture claim that :
1) The ex cathedra dogma on salvation does not state that everyone needs to be a formal, visible member of the Church to go to Heaven and avoid Hell. The text of the dogma contradicts him. For centuries ‘the rigorist interpretation’ was the interpretation of the Catholic Church.
2) He claims that Fr. Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for affirming the rigorist interpretation of the dogma. He will not provide any text as proof.( See Letter of the Holy and Fr. Leonard Feeney no excommunicated for heresy in Updated Catholic Apologetics)
3) He suggest that this infallible teaching does not indicate that God will send millions of people to Hell even though the Church has taught for centuries that this is the interpretation of extra eccleisam nulla salus.
4) The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that there are people who can be saved with the baptism of desire or blood, in invincible ignorance etc. Fine! And they are known only to God. Mirus places this acceptable teaching of the Church in opposition to the teaching that everyone with no exception needs to enter the Church for salvation.
5) The Catechism states that outside the church there is no salvation means that all salvation comes from God and that whoever is saved is saved through Jesus and the Catholic Church. Fine. This is acceptable to us Catholics. Mirus places this teaching in opposition to the infallible teaching which says that everyone needs Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water to avoid Hell and go to Heaven.
6) He rejects Vatican Council II which states all people need to enter the Catholic Church with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water(Ad Gentes 7). Vatican Council I is agreement with the ex cathedra dogma but not for Mirus.
7) He rejects the Catechism of the Catholic Church 845 which is in accord with the infallible teaching on salvation. It says God the Fathers wants all people to be united into the Catholic Church. The Church is the only Ark of Noah that saves in the Flood.
8) Lumen Gentium 16 Vatican Council II is misinterpreted (See Updated Apologetics).
Your donation sent to him this Christmas means promoting the false teachings of a man in public mortal sin. (See Heresy. Updated Apologetics).Even after being informed he continues to cause confusion among Catholics.
Mirus is causing confusion among Catholics, including priests and religious, on a big scale and if you send him money you are encouraging, promoting and abetting in his actions. It is a mortal sin when done intentionally.
You are placing your soul at risk. You will also go to receive the Eucharist at Mass in this sad condition.Extra eccleisam null salus has now been politicised. It is rejected by the leftist-secularists. It is an ideological issue like abortion and homosexuality. Catholic Culture through its reports is holding an ideological position on this issue. It is the same position as the Masons, Communists, secularists and those working for the coming of the Anti Christ.
This is not the concept of charity for Catholics. For secular organisations it is normal to promote a values which for a Catholic is a sin.
If unknowingly you have already been donating to Catholic Culture and Mirus’ work and your conscience says you should not, know, that you did it in good faith, it was not a sin.
Now however you know.
We do not have the list of donors to Catholic Culture. If we did we would make it public.
Since Mirus’ understating of the Church meets the aims of the Jewish Left and the New Age he should be able to easily get funds from them. According to his bio data he has founded a college and has now bought off an orthodox Catholic media and named it Catholic Culture.
________________________________________________________________________________
UPDATED APOLOGETICS: EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS (Sept.16, 2010)
1. LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949
In the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 Pope Pius XII said all Jews in Boston are on the way to Hell and they need to convert. He indicated this when he referred to the ‘dogma’, ‘the infallible teaching’.
2. VATICAN COUNCIL II, LUMEN GENTIUM 16
There cannot be an explicit baptism of desire that we know of, neither can we judge cases of explicit invincible ignorance since we cannot read the heart of any person.
LG 16 refers to something implicit, known only as a concept. Probable, possible but not a reality. We do not know explicitly or implicitly (in principle) any case of a good conscience, the baptism of desire or blood or invincible ignorance in the present times or the last 100 years (If the Church declares that someone is a martyr only the Church has the right to judge).
3. FR. LEONARD FEENEY NOT EXCOMMNICATED FOR HERESY
There is no church document which says he was excommunicated for heresy. He was excommunicated for disobedience. Over time it has become clear that it was the Archbishop and Jesuits at Boston who rejected the rigorist interpretation of the ex. cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The Archbishop Richard Cushing never issued a clarification when the Boston newspapers reported that eh Church has changed its centuries old teaching.
4. INFALLIBLE DOGMAS DO NOT DEVELOP
There is no Church document to support the position that the ex cathedra dogma extra excclesiam nulla salus has been ‘developed’ or ‘changed’ or ‘retracted’. Infallible teachings defined three times do not 'develop'.
5. SALVATION OF CHRISTIANS (NON CATHOLICS)
Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council Ii says all people need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation. No church document says Christians (non Catholics) religions are the ordinary way to salvation. If a Christian is saved in his religions it will be known to only God. God can provide the helps in this exceptional case, which could include the baptism of water. In Heaven there are only Catholics.
6.HERESY
In the Apostles and Nicene Creed we pray, ‘I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin’ and ‘I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church’. Everyone needs the baptism of water to remove Original sin for salvation. It is the Holy Spirit which guides the Church to teach through the centuries the ‘rigorist interpretation’ of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. To reject the Nicene and Apostles Creed is a first class heresy in the hierarchy of truths. It would also be a rejection of the Athanasius Creed which states outside the church there is no salvation.
7. EUCHARIST
So it is mortal sin to change an ex cathedra dogma or to reject its meaning. It is a first class heresy.A person is automatically excommunicated.He has no right to receive the Eucharist at Mass.Neither can he offer Mass if he is a priest.He first needs to receive absolution in the Confessional and remove the public scandal.
8.SUPERIOR HAS TO BE A CATHOLIC
A Superior ( juridical person according to Canon Law ) has to be a Catholic. So he needs to affirm in public every ex cathedra dogma.Otherwise he cannot hold his office.Neither can one receive the Eucharist in this condition.
Here is the ex cathedra dogma which every Superior according to Canon Law are obligated to affirm and teach others.
1. “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215). Ex cathedra.
2.“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.).Ex cathedra.
3.“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.) Ex cathedra – from the website Catholicism.org and “No Salvation outside the Church”: Link List, the Three Dogmatic Statements Regarding EENS
9.THERE ARE TWO INTERPRETATIONS OF VATICAN COUNCIL II
The first is: everyone needs to enter the Catholic Church for salvation (Ad Gentes 7) except for those in invincible ignorance, the baptism of desire etc (LG 16).
The second is: everyone needs to be a visible, formal, ‘card-carrying member’ of the Catholic Church and there are no exceptions (AG 7) and if there was someone in invincible ignorance, the baptism of desire or a good conscience it would be known only to God.
10. BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS NOT OPPOSED TO THE DOGMA
Baptism of desire is usually interpreted as being opposed to the dogma which says that everyone needs to be a visible, formal member of the Church with no exceptions. We can also interpret Vatican Council II as saying that everyone needs to be a visible member of the Church to avoid Hell and if there is anyone with the Baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance it will be known only to God.
There is no Church Document which suggests that baptism of desire, invincible ignorance should be placed in opposition to the need of formal entry into the Catholic Church for everyone with no exception.
11. CCC 1257 (THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM) AND DE FACTO, DE JURE CONCEPT
The Catechism of the Catholic Church ( CCC 1257 ) refers to de facto salvation in the first part and de jure (in principle) salvation in the second part. Otherwise it would be ludicrous and make no sense.
It means Lumen Gentium 16 (LG 16) could refer to de jure (in principle) salvation.
If LG 16 is de jure then it is not in conflict with Ad Gentes 7, which states ,'all people' need Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water for salvation.LG 16 would be in accord with tradition.
If is not in conflict with AG 7 then it is not in conflict with the ex cathedra dogma which says everyone with no exception needs to de facto enter the Church for salvation and there are no exceptions.
12. SUPPORTERS OF FR.LEONARD FEENEY SAY THERE IS NO BAPTISM OF DESIRE
I could agree with them. It is true in a sense but it has to be clarified. Words however need to be used with precision.
I would say they mean:
1.There is no explicit Baptism of desire (BOD).It cannot be external and seen.
2.There is no implicit baptism of desire (BOD).It cannot be known in principle in a particular time.
3.There is no BOD without the Sacraments.(So there could be a BOD with the Sacrament).
4.There is no explicit BOD without the Sacrament of the Baptism of water.
5.There is no implicit BOD without the Sacrament of the Baptism of water.
6.There is a BOD with the Sacrament of the Baptism of water known to us as a concept and something possible 'in certain circumstances' and known always only to God.
Posts
