Saturday, January 26, 2013

Traditionalists still assume that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus : no canonical status for the SSPX when they are really in agreement with Vatican Council II


When Jefferey Mirus of Catholic Culture writes a report critical on extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the community of Fr.Leonard Feeney, Brother Andre Marie MICM will respond.

Jefferey Mirus will assume that the baptism of desire is explicit and known to us in personal cases so it is an exception .Brother Andre Marie Prior at the St.Benedict Center,one of Fr.Leonard Feeney's communities in the USA, will defend Fr.Leonard Feeney and say historically and theologically the baptism of desire was not considered a Sacrament and so the baptism of water is also needed for those catechumens who have a genuine desire and perfect charity.

So he will accept the baptism of desire in principle as containing the baptism of water and so it is not an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.It is that every one needs to be a visible member of the Church with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation.

Without the baptism of water there cannot be a catechumen saved for Brother Andre Marie. So in the case of the baptism of desire, God would provide the grace for a preacher to come and baptise the catechumen.

What Brother Andre Marie and Mr.Brian Kelly on the Catholicism.org website have not done is to use another approach . They could simply tell Jeff Mirus that for something to be an exception it has to be known.We don't know any case of the baptism of desire in 2013.

So they accept the baptism of desire as a possibility, followed with the baptism of water, and none of these cases are known to us personally in real life. So how can what we do not know be an exception?

This could be the approach also with the Society of St.Pius X(SSPX).

If there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in Vatican Council II then the Council is in agreement with the SSPX on the subject of other religions and ecumenism.

So Vatican Council II is in agreement with the traditionalists position on other religions and the SSPX does not know this and the St.Benedict Centers are not helping them to know this. If the St.Benedict Center accepts Vatican Council II and also that non Catholic religions are not paths to salvation then the SSPX could use this model. Since the St.Benedict Centers affirm the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and this is compatible with Vatican Council II.


The Sisters of St.Benedict Center, in the diocese of Worcester have canonical status. They affirm the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney, and the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are accepted in principle as possibilities. It is known that they are not explicit for them to be exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma. So Vatican Council II is in accord with extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

If any one protests why are these traditonalists given canonical status when they hold the 'rigorist interpretation' of Fr.Leonard Feeney they simply explain that what does not exist cannot be an exception.They do not know any one in 2013 saved with implicit salvation which is visible for us humans.

In general, I notice on forums, Traditionalists still assume that implicit to us salvation is explicit and visible.Even if they do not accept Vatican Council II, traditionalists with the SSPX and St.Benedict Centers could agree that there is no visible baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance and that these cases can only be accepted in principle.-Lionel Andrades

Even though the St. Dennis Catholic Church does not accept Vatican Council II the SSPX members in Calgary could inform the bishop that there is nothing rational in the Council which contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Bishop Frederick Henry wants the St.Dennis Catholic Church,Calgary to accept the dead man walking theory in Vatican Council II, to get canonical status.The bishop of Calgary like the Vatican Curia cardinals and bishops have canonical status since they affirm Vatican Council II with the dead man walking theory and so the Council emerges modernist.They claim that these cases of the dead visible and saved are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Of course if there were none of these exceptions then Vatican Council II would not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Council would not be modernist and heretical.
Image

The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) members at the St.Dennis Catholic Church in Calgary , may, like other SSPX members, affirm that non Catholic religions are not paths to salvation. However like SSPX members they may also say that the dead saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma on salvation.So for them too like Bishop Frederick Henry, the Catechism and Vatican Council II contradicts extra ecclesiam nulla salus. On this issue the progressives and traditionalists are united.United in irrationality.

So expectedly the St.Dennis Catholic Church rejects Vatican Council II, which contains the false premise of being able to see the dead, and the SSPX members assume, that the Council contradicts their traditional position on other religions.

They could, if they want, based on reason, show the bishop of Calgary that there could be two interpretations to the Catechism and Vatican Council II - a rational and an irrational one.

Even if they are not going to accept Vatican Council II they can still  inform Bishop Frederick Henry that we cannot see the dead so the Catechism and Vatican Council II cannot be interpreted with this false premise.They could still inform the bishop that there is nothing rational in the Council which contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Father Jurgen Wegner prays in the chapel of St. Joseph Center in Saint-Cesaire, Quebec. Fr. Wegner says the St. Pius X Society had purchased a church in Calgary as its congregation had grown.
How can Catholics attend Mass when the bishop  does not accept extra ecclesiam nulla salus, when he denies the dogma with irrationality ? How can he say that he accepts Vatican Council II and the Catechism in its totality and then assume that the dead who are saved are visible to all in 2013? This is his interpretation of the Council and Catechism?.-Lionel Andrades


BISHOP HENRY UNABLE TO RESPOND TO HERESY CHARGES

Bishop Frederick Henry does not deny heresy charge 
 
BISHOP FREDERICK HENRY AND THE SSPX INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II AS BREAK WITH THE PAST : THEY ASSUME THE DEAD ARE VISIBLE AS DID THE ARCHBISHOP OF BOSTON RICHARD CUSHING

BISHOP FREDRICK HENRY OF CALGARY,CANADA RESPONDS: SSPX

BISHOP HENRY UNABLE TO RESPOND TO HERESY CHARGES


The bishop of Calgary refuses to affirm the Catechism of the Catholic Church without implying that the dead saved are visible to us. Neither will he affirm the Catechism in accord with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II. He rejects the dogma on salvation, since for him invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire cases, are explicit and known in 2013.So for him these cases of the deceased, are defacto explicit exceptions to the dogma which says all need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation.

Bishop Frederick Henry still refuses to affirm the Catechism without the visible dead theory, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II without it being a heretical break with the past.

Bishop Frederick Henry has responded to my last e-mail .He does not discuss my comments on the Catechism quotations which he had cited instead he calls be a liar and a calumniator.

Bishop Henry writes:
It would seem that you have forgotten that lying, detraction, and calumny are sinful. Pity!
My response was:
Dear Bishop Frederick Henry,
Praised be Jesus and Our Lady.

For the record you have not denied the following:

1.That you reject the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with known exceptions of invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.

2. That you consider Vatican Council II a break with the past because of known exceptions.

3.You hold the same error as the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Cushing.

4.You interpret the Catechism of the Catholic Church assuming the dead who are saved, are visible.

You offer the Holy Mass in this condition.

Instead of responding to these points you accuse me of lying and calumny.

Inn Christ
Lionel Andrades
He has responded without acknowledging that he accepts the Catechism and Vatican Council II with the false premise. He accepts them while assuming that the dead saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are visible to us. So for him they are  exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This was the same error of the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing.


Bishop Henry states:

I accept the Catechism and Vatican II in their totality – do YOU?
He still does not want to discuss this issue and affirm the Faith.The shepherd cannot defend or deny a heretical position.

The Society of St.Pius X's  priests and supporters also  deny the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus  with alleged known exceptions.So they also use a hermeneutic of rupture in the interpretation of Vatican Council II similiar to Bishop Frederick Henry.It is possible that this error is also being made at the SSPX's St.Dennis Catholic Church in Calgary.

Bishop Henry and the SSPX use the irrational premise, the Richard Cushing Error in the interpretation of magisterial documents.

I have responded:

Dear Bishop Frederick Henry,

Praised be Jesus and Our Lady.

It is meaningless for you to say that you accept the Catechism of the Catholic Church when you assume that the references to invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire cases are visible to us in 2013.So you assume that the Catechism refers to explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

The Catechism does not state that these cases are explict and known to us and neither does it state that these cases are an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is an irrational premise of yours. You are assuming that the dead saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma.

So you are still denying an ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and you cannot pretend that there are texts in the Catechism which contradict a teaching which is obligatory for all bishops to affirm.

Also since you use the irrational premise of the dead man walking ,saved in invincible ignorance etc and who is visible to you only, for you ,Vatican Council II also must be a break with the dogma on salvation and the past Magisterial texts.

So in your Profession of Faith ,when you say 'I believe in one baptism for the forgivessness of sin' (Nicene Creed) you mean there are three known baptisms,water, desire and blood- and not just one known baptism, that of water.

The Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Gerhard Muller, recently said that it was heretical when progressives interpret Vatican Council II as a break with the past.

I repeat it is also a heresy to deny the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

In Christ
Lionel Andrades

He asks if I accept the Catechism. Yes but not with the dead man walking theory. This was the error of the Archbishop and Jesuits at Boston in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case.-Lionel Andrades