Thursday, September 27, 2012

EENS FORUM ASSUMES THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS AN EXCEPTION TO THE INFALLIBLE DOGMA ON SALVATION

On a pro-Fr.Leonard Feeney Catholic forum there are posts under the heading Can there be exceptions to Dogma?

Can there be exceptions to Catholic dogmatic teachings of the Church?


What say you? And if you say there cannot be any exceptions, then are you a Baptism of Desire or Baptism of Blood believer? If so, then how do you square that baptism of desire/baptism of blood belief with your claim that there are no exceptions whatsoever to Catholic dogma?

Just so you know,.. Catholic dogma teaches that "only through the sacrament of baptism does one enter the Church" and "there is no salvation outside the Church"

The sacrament of baptism is not "Baptism of Desire", but instead is only "WATER BAPTISM", so therefore the dogmatic statement is saying "Only through WATER baptism does one enter the Church"

So of you are a baptism of desire/baptism of blood believer, then aren't you claiming that there can be exceptions to that infallible statement?

Here it assumed that the baptism of desire is known to us in the present time and so is an exception to the infallible teaching on outside the church there is no salvation.

How can the baptism of desire be an exception when we do not know of a single case ?

Then there is a response:

No, there can be no exceptions and that is why I don't believe in baptism of desire or baptism of blood.
She does not believe in the baptism of desire and baptism of blood since she assumes that these cases are explicit to us, they are known in the present times (2012) and they can be seen and repeated just as the baptism of water.



A third view is posted.It says:

Those who believe in baptism of desire are saying that they 'do' know of another means besides water Baptism that can assure salvation even though the Church doen't know of this means.
On the contrary those who believe in implicit desire are saying that they do not know of any explicit-implicit  case in the present times who can be saved with the baptism of desire /implicit desire. However in faith, in principle they accept this possibility and it would be known only to God. So the baptism of desire does not contradict the literal interpretation of the dogma by Fr.Leonard Feeney.The possibility is a reality only for God. The possibility is not a reality for us.So it is not an exception to the dogma. This was the error Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits at Boston.-Lionel Andrades

http://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t885-can-there-be-exceptions-to-dogma

PADRE PIO SEEING A NON CATHOLIC SAVED DOES NOT CONTRADICT THE 'RIGORIST INTERPRETATION' OF THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS

Padre Pio saw a non Catholic saved. This  does not contradict the 'rigorist interpretation' of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Superficially it may seem an exception to the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It is not.Since for centuries the Church has held that a non Catholic could be saved with implicit desire  and this did not contradict the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It is the sedevacantists like the Most Holy Family Monastery,USA who assume that implicit desire is explicit and so an exception to the dogma on salvation. They reject the baptism of desire of the Council of Trent.

The Council of Trent affirmed being saved with implicit desire and also cited text from Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441 on extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It was not in contradiction.

The Catholic Church accepts that these possibilities are known only to God. They are not the ordinary means of salvation for all which is Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.

So a non Catholic saved could have had an angel give him the baptism of water or God could have sent someone to baptize him. This would not be known to us.

So there are no known exceptions on earth of non Catholics saved with the baptism of water or in invincible ignorance. Since none of these cases are visible to us, we cannot assume that any non Catholic is in Heaven without the baptism of water.

Also we cannot judge beforehand that any non Catholic on earth will be saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire. We do not know the future.

There could be someone with a special charism or gift who does know however in general we do not know.

When St. Francis of Assisi met the Sultan in Jerusalem he told the Sultan that before he died he would be baptized. This happened when a group of Franciscan Friars met the Sultan at his death bed. The Sultan would be in Heaven as a Catholic. St. Francis of Assisi had the charism to know.

There are only Catholics in Heaven. So the person Padre Pio saw saved is now a Catholic and had to expiate for his sins in Purgatory.

In this case may be Padre Pio made it possible for this lady’s non Catholic husband to convert and be saved.-Lionel Andrades










FR.FRANZ SCHMIDBERGER COULD ASK THE POPE

According to Fr.Franz Schmidberger German matematician and District Superior of the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) (1) the SSPX  asked at the Vatican if Pope Benedict  personally approved the new theological requirements the SSPX had to accept. The answer was yes. The new demands were from the pope and not one of the Vatican Curia cardinals, Fr. Schmidber said.

They have their lines of communication open and this is good.Now Fr.Schmidberger could ask the pope the following questions which are relevant to the SSPX-Vatican talks and the theological conditions:

1. The baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?

2. Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?

3. So if Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston supported or rejected the baptism of desire it makes no difference?

4.If the Holy Office in 1949 in the Letter to the Archbishop of Boston assumed that the baptism of desire was an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus then they made an objective error ?

5.We do not know any case of the dead saved on earth in 2012 who are visible to us?

6.If the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are not exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church, then there is no theological basis for the theology of religions and ecclesiology of communion which the pope wants the SSPX to accept ?

PAPAL RESPONSE

1.If the pope responds to Question N.1 and says that the baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma it means Vatican Council II is a traditional council just like Trent. The entire interpretation of the Council changes.

2.If he then realizes that  Vatican Council II does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus it means the Council is in agreement with St.Robert Bellarmine and  the Syllabus of Errors.

3.If Fr.Leonard Feeney supported or rejected the baptism of desire and  makes no difference, then the pope is still saying Vatican Council II says outside the church there is no salvation and it is in agreement with Fr.Leonard Feeney's literal interpretation.

4.If the Letter of the Holy Office lends itself to confusion then the confusion needs to be removed. An objective error is obvious to all.It is not theology.A Vatican spokesman could deal with the confusion by announcing that the baptism of desire is known only to God and we do not know any case which could be an explicit exception to the dogma.

5.That we cannot see the dead is an objective fact on which the pope must agree.

6.According to the International Theological Commission posiiton paper Christianity and the World Religions and The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without baptism the ITC assumes there is salvation outside the Church. This is  due to its interpretation of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 with reference to Fr.Leonard Feeney.This error of being able to see the dead and then assuming that these 'ghosts' were exception to the dogma was was the theological basis for the 'theology of religions' and 'ecclesiology of communion' in  the two  ITC papers.

We now know that this was a factual error. It was the Archbishop of Boston Richard Cushing who was wrong in assuming that the baptism of desire etc was an explicit exception to the literal and traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.

INFORM THE MEDIA
The SSPX could ask someone to  sponsor a large announcement/advertisment in the newspapers in Rome in the Year of the Faith, with the following logic.

1. The dead are not visible to us.

2. We cannot see the dead saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire in the present times (2012).

3.We do not know any non Catholic who does not need to convert into the Catholic Church because of the baptism of desire or being saved in potential invincible ignorance.

4.We cannot meet such cases on the street and neither telephone them.

5.Since we cannot know such cases or meet them the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are not known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

6.Since we cannot know anyone on earth saved in invincible ignorance,the baptism of desire, a good conscience, seeds of the Word, imperfect communion with the Church, elements of sanctification etc, there are no exceptions  in Vatican Council II to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

7.Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma on salvation.

8.Vatican Council II is in agreement with the dogma on salvation as interpreted by St.Robert Bellarmine.It is in agreement with the Syllabus of Errors and  Sacred Tradition.

9.Vatican Council II is in agreement with SSPX values on other religions, ecumenism and religious liberty when the false and irrational theory,of being able to see the dead alive and saved on earth in the present times,is omitted.

10.Vatican Council II is a traditional Council with a traditional understanding of Church (ecclesiology). So there can be no theological basis for the 'theology of religions' and an 'ecclesiology of communion'.
-Lionel Andrades

1.
PIUSFILM of the SSPX's German District has posted a brief video interview of Fr. Franz Schmidberger (conducted by Fr. Andreas Steiner) that discusses the current situation between the Society and Rome