The baptism was given to those who were in the community, the Early Church, the Early Catholic Church

Fr. Regis Scanlon OFM Cap.writes in Did Vatican II reverse the Church’s teaching on religious liberty? that ‘Some traditionalists, like the late Fr. Leonard Feeney, and some progressives, like Charles E. Curran and Bede Griffiths, have understood Boniface VIII’s teaching in Unam Sanctam to mean that only Catholics could be saved .

 Yes ,Vatican Council II like Fr.Leonard Feeney says all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water salvation.This is the teaching of Vatican Council II.(AG 7 ,LG 14).So it is not just a past papal teaching. The same message is there in other magisterial documents after Vatican Council II. He writes in the Homiletic and Pastoral Review  'While Feeney believed this to be true Church teaching, Curran and Griffiths believed this to be an example of past papal teaching error.’

The pope could not personally know the heart of everyone.However he knew that Jesus said all need the baptism of water for salvation. The baptism was given to those who were in the community, the Early Church, the Early Catholic Church.

Jesus also said that those who do not enter will be condemned. Those who have heard the Gospel preached to them and yet they do not enter will be condemned. This was the Gospel reading at the Novus Ordo Mass last Sunday.

Fr.Scanlon writes ‘But Boniface VIII did not “manifestly” judge all unbelievers. He only “manifestly” condemned the action of one who would knowingly and deliberately reject papal authority and separate from the Church. Boniface VIII’s doctrine is consistent with Scripture and tradition, which teach that invincible “ignorance” or “blindness” excuse a person from mortal sin and damnation (cf. Jn 9:41). Only those who knowingly reject the teachings of Christ are condemned to hell (cf. Mt 10:14; Lk 10:16).’

Is Fr.Scanlon  saying that invincible ignorance is an explicit exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus of Pope Boniface VIII ?

There are no known exceptions of people saved in invincible ignorance.Vatican Council II (AG 7) is still saying that all need to be subject to the Pope for salvation ; all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation(AG 7).

He writes ‘So, did Vatican II reverse Pius IX’s teachings on religious liberty as found in Quanta Cura? Absolutely not! Did the Council develop this teaching? Certainly!’

Quanta Cura is in agreement with Ad Gentes 7 and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It has not reversed or developed the Church’s teaching on salvation or religious liberty.

Every one is free according to law to follow his conscience or religion while we are free as Catholics to say that those who do not convert into the Church with faith and baptism are oriented to Hell.

-Lionel Andrades

http://www.hprweb.com/2011/01/did-vatican-ii-reverse-the-churchs-teaching-on-religious-liberty/Q

Vatican Council II like the dogma says all need to enter the Church for salvation

Comment on the webblog Our Lady's Tears

Paul says :

I will add one caveat for the sake of those who might follow the thought of Fr. Leonard Feeney: and who exactly is "outside the Church"? Vatican II (Lumen Gentium, No. 14) provides answer: "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."

Lionel:

Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7) ‘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 like the dogma says all need to enter the Church for salvation.

Paul:

To those who mistakenly believe that membership in the Church alone is necessary for salvation,

Lionel:

This is the teaching of Vatican Council II so we cannot be mistaken.

Paul:

the same document teaches that, "He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a 'bodily' manner and not 'in his heart.'

Lionel:

Yes and we do not know personally who these cases are. They are known only to God. So they do not contradict Vatican Council II (AG 7)

Paul:

All the Church's children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged."

Lionel:

True.

So we believe all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation and it is only God who will decide who 'knew' and who is in invincible ignorance and who is a part of the body of the Church but does not persevere in charity.

So all need to enter the Church with no known exceptions and it is only God who will decide to whom the faith was preache to and they did not enter; who knew about Jesus and the Church and yet they did not convert.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/search/label/Fr.Rafael%20Pascual%20L.C

-Lionel Andrades

http://ourladystears.blogspot.it/2010/09/one-true-refuge-one-true-church-i.html

Bishop Fellay, Fr.Schmidberger,FSSP,Joseph Fenton seem unaware the baptism of desire is not an explicit exception to the dogma

From Rorate Caeli comments on Who is a Traditionalist?

Ecclesia Militans said...
Brother André Marie,
I've studied the articles and I must say that they do not make a convincing argument against the threefold Baptism.


Lionel:
 it is important to note that there is only one baptism which is explicit. It is the baptism of water.

Ecclesia Militans
Other than quoting the many various forms of the dogma extra Ecclesiam nulla salus and discussions and speculations on St. Augustine's view, there are only two or three marginal quotes by doctors that speak against the threefold Baptism.


Lionel:
We can only accept the baptism of desire and martrydom in pinciple. Explicitly we do not know any case, we cannot judge.If the Church declares someone a martyr we accept it.


Ecclesia Militans
As for St. Emerentiana, I see that Fr. Feeney decided to deny Tradition by saying she must have been baptised in water before martyrdom, although she has always been counted as an unbaptized cathecumen who died for Christ and received the Baptism of Blood.

On the other hand, I present you a short list of those important documents, theologians, bishops and doctors that explicitly affirmed the threefold Baptism (most of the quotes are found in the article mentioned in my last comment, if you wish, I can send you the others by mail):


Lionel:
In this list it is important to note that none of them said that the baptism of desire and the baptism of blood were explicitly known to us or that we could judge these cases in general or that they were explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.


Ecclesia Militans
St. Cyprian BM, Tertullian, St. Cyril of Jerusalem BCD, St. John Chrysostome BCD, St. Ambrose BCD, St. Augustine BCD, St. Thomas Aquinas CD, St. Catherine of Sienna V, Ecumenical Council of Trent, Catechism of the Council of Trent, St. Alphonsus Liguori BCD, Pope Pius IX, Baltimore Cathechism (19th century), The Cathechism Explained (1899), Cathechism of Pope St. Pius X, Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), Code of Canon Law (1917), Catholic Dictionary (1946), Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office (1949), mons.

Lionel:
They all were in agrement with Fr.Leonard Feeney.


Ecclesia Militans

Joseph Fenton (1952), Archbishop Lefebvre FSSPX, Fr. Schmidberger FSSPX, Bishop Fellay FSSPX...


Lionel:
 They seem unaware too that the baptism of desire etc are not defacto exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.


Ecclesia Militans

The inescapable conclusion is that the doctrine of Fr. Feeney denies or contradicts the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium as expressed through the above teachings of the said theologians, doctors etc.


Lionel:
 Fr.Leonrd Feeney said that there is only one baptism, the baptism of water . This is the only explicit baptism. For salvation all people need the baptism of water and there are no known exceptions.This is the teaching of the Magisterium as expressed through the above mentioned theologians, doctors etc.This is  the teaching  of the following:


St. Cyprian BM, Tertullian, St. Cyril of Jerusalem BCD, St. John Chrysostome BCD, St. Ambrose BCD, St. Augustine BCD, St. Thomas Aquinas CD, St. Catherine of Sienna V, Ecumenical Council of Trent, Catechism of the Council of Trent, St. Alphonsus Liguori BCD, Pope Pius IX, Baltimore Cathechism (19th century), The Cathechism Explained (1899), Cathechism of Pope St. Pius X, Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), Code of Canon Law (1917), Catholic Dictionary (1946), Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office (1949), mons.


Ecclesia Militans

It even goes against the Code of Canon Law which was valid at the time (canons 737 & 1239).


Lionel:
No magisterial document states that the baptism of desire etc are explicitly known to us or an exception to the dogma.

Ecclesia Militans

you can see that to assert that so many theologians, doctors, popes and Church documents were in error for so many centuries is to deny the indefectibility of the Church.St. Alphonsus Liguori calls the baptism of desire de fide,...


Lionel:
Yes it is de fide and accepted in principle. It cannot be known explicitly and so it does not contradict the dogma or Fr.Leonard Feeney.


Ecclesia Militans

and St. Cyprian BM, back in the 3rd century, seems to call those who do not believe in the Baptism of Blood of the cathecumens "aiders and favourers of heretics".


Lionel:
The baptism of blood is not an exception to the dogma.

Ecclesia Militans

In short and precise quote:


"Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control.“


Lionel:
 Correct and we do not know any case of a non Catholic on earth who is saved in invincible ignorance or is going to be saved.

Ecclesia Militans

e Pius IX, SINGULARI QUIDEM
http://www.ewtn.com/library/encyc/p9singul.htm


Lionel:
No where does Pope Pius IX say that the baptism of desire etc are exceptions to the dogma or that they are explicit. On has to make this wrong assumption.The popes do not make this assumption.


20 January, 2012 23:34

-Lionel Andrades

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.it/2012/01/who-is-traditionalist.html

Are religious and pro abortion politicians in manifest mortal sin according to Canon Lawyer Ed Peters and Deacon Greg Kandra ?

Comments from the website The Deacons Bench

Fr. Marcel Guarnizo’s pastor: “Let me repeat…”Mar 14th, 2012 by Deacon Greg Kandra

 Lionel Andrades says:

March 17, 2012 at 9:33 am

Saturday, March 17, 2012

CANONIST REJECTS VERITATIS SPLENDOR

Canonist Peters thinks Fr.Guarnizo was wrong in witholding the Eucharist to the Barbara Johnson.

http://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2012/03/15/1733/

Edward Peters errs in assuming that the outward action does not indicate the internal thoughts or motivation. This is the moral theology of Fr.Bernard Haring and Fr.Charles Curran.

Homosexuality and lesbianism will always be a mortal sin.It is grave matter and the woman has admitted it in this case.She persists in receiving the Eucharist and still persists in the sin.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/canonist-rejects-veritatis-splendor.html

 

Reply

 Deacon Greg Kandra says:

March 17, 2012 at 9:35 am

Lionel…

Homosexuality is not a mortal sin.

Homosexual acts are.

Read the catechism.

You might also want to read this explanation of what “manifest” sin means.

Dcn. G.

 Lionel Andrades says:

March 18, 2012 at 8:43 am

Deacon Kandra,

Praised be Jesus and Our Lady.

I am aware that the homosexuality orientation is not a mortal sin but the act is.

Similarly a lustful thought in a heterosexual is not a sin per se but the willful act is a grave sin. So masturbation, fornication, concubinage etc are grave sins.

So if a homosexual/lesbian lives with a similar partner it is similar to concubinage. If the lesbian has a lover as in this case it is a grave sin.

Homosexuality in this sense has always been considered a mortal sin.

Ed Peters has changed Catholic teaching. He writes ‘There was apparently no mention of Johnson’s possible lesbian activism’. What does he mean?

He wrote:‘Guarnizo says that, a few minutes before Mass started, Johnson appeared in the sacristy and introduced another woman as her “lover”; further conversation was prevented by the “lover” standing in a doorway. There was apparently no mention of Johnson’s possible lesbian activism, her cohabitation status (if any),’

Also now after the Eucharistic incident we know Barbara Johnson is a Buddhist and a lesbian and she has not denied it. Will not all those who continue to give her the Eucharist be in mortal sin and come under Canon 915?

Ed Peters says:‘ In contrast, Canon 915 binds ministers, not recipients.’

True, Canon 915 binds ministers. This also includes the archbishop and bishops in Washington who give the Eucharist to pro abortion politicians. This is a grave sin and they are culpable under Canon 915Ed Peters says Canon Law 915 binds ministers and not recipients. Cardinal Donald Wuerl, the bishops and priests and Eucharistic ministers do not come under Canon Law 915, when they give the Eucharist to pro abortion politicians? Is this not sacrilegious cooperation. Are these religious and the pro abortion politicians in manifest mortal sin according to Ed Peters and you?

Canon Lawyer Ed Peters is reportedly employed in the Detroit Archdiocese seminary. The bishop of Detroit is not willing to affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or say that Jews need to convert for salvation and he targeted Michael Voris for defending Catholic teaching. Can a juridical person according to Canon Law deny a defined dogma ?

When Fr. Marcel Guarnizo said that the Eucharist cannot be given to a Quaker, Lutheran or Buddhist he was affirming a defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and also Ad Gentes 7 Vatican Council II, Dominus Iesus 20, CCC 846 etc.

Cardinal Donald Wuerl (is not ) willing to affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Since he believes, according to the Notification issued on Fr. Peter C. Phan, that those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are defacto exceptions to the dogma.(He was on the USCCB Doctrinal Committee). Is not the Archbishop of Washington in manifest mortal sin for Ed Peters?

Lionel

_____________________________________________

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2012/03/fr-marcels-pastor-let-me-repeat/

About the Deacon

Deacon Greg Kandra is a Roman Catholic deacon serving the Diocese of Brooklyn, New York. A veteran broadcast journalist, Deacon Greg worked for 26 years as a writer and producer for CBS News in both New York and Washington. He now serves as the Executive Editor of ONE, the acclaimed magazine published by the Catholic Near East Welfare Association (CNEWA). In addition to receiving two awards from the Catholic Press Association, Deacon Greg has been honored with every major award in broadcasting, including two George Foster Peabody Awards, two Emmy Awards, and four awards from the Writers Guild of America

FR. LEONARD FEENEY'S SUPPORTERS

Fr.Leonard Feeney's supporters: It is true that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 had many technical irregularities and it could be a bishop-to-bishop private document. So we can mention this point in our posts and  also,  that the Letter referred specifically to ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible statement’.The text of ' the dogma' supports Fr.Leonard Feeney. The dogma carries the literal interpretation of outside the church no salvation and does not mention the baptism of desire or being saved in invincible ignorance. It does not imply that the baptism of desire etc are explicit exceptions to the dogma.

So the Letter of the Holy Office clearly supports Fr.Leonard Feeney here.

Secondly, while mentioning the technical irregularities of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 we can also bring it to the attention of others that the baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Whether anyone is saved with the baptism of desire, or with the baptism of desire along with the baptism of water, is in a sense irrelevant to the dogma outside the church no salvation. It does not contradict the literal interpretation of the dogma by Fr.Leonard Feeney. This is also the interpretation of the Church Fathers, the Church Councils and the popes, Vatican Council I and II, all the Catechism including the present one, Dominus Iesus 20 and other magisterial documents.

The baptism of desire is always ‘speculation’, it can never be known to us. If the cardinals who approved the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 assumed that the baptism of desire was an explicit exception to the dogma then they were making an objective, common sense error.

John comments on Catholicism.org :

"...by a longing and desire" line is speculative, non-binding, and impurity at its worst. Whether the subjects of these theological "constructs" are known to us or not matters not in the least.

I agree.

Even though the baptism of desire accompadies by the baptism of water in certain cases known only to God,  is a possibility, it is ‘speculative’ and ‘non binding’. Correct, whether it is ‘known to us or not matters not in the least’.

 

So there is nothing in Vatican Council II or the Letter of the Holy Office which explicitly contradicts the dogmatic teaching ?

Being saved by 'the seeds of the Word', a ' good conscience', 'invincible ignorance', 'imperfect communion', 'elements of sanctification' etc are known only to God. So they are not explicit exceptions to the dogma which says everyone needs to convert into the Catholic Church to avoid the fires of Hell.

-Lionel Andrades