|
Post by lionelandrades on Jan 11, 2012 16:26:13 GMT
Tuesday, January 10, 2012 ERRORS IN THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH: OUTSIDE THE CHURCH NO SALVATION The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) under the sub heading outside the church there is no salvation mentions invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire as exceptions. They are not defacto exceptions.
Vatican Council II also mentions invincible ignorance (LG 16) but nowhere implies that it is an exception to the dogma or the ordinary means of salvation.
The Catechism instead implies that those who are saved in invincible ignorance are visible and known to us, so the baptism of water is needed by only those who know about Jesus and the Church.
The text of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus states that everyone needs to enter the Church. The text of the dogma defined three times is not included in the Catechism.This is all misleading.
To imply that the baptism of desire is a defacto exception to the dogma is heresy. It is indifferentism when one says non Catholics can be defacto saved in their religion and we know who these cases are. This teaching is not part of the Deposit of the Faith. It is irrational and a repititon of the Richard Cushing Error.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in preparing the Catechism did not violate the Principle of Non Contradiction. Since defactro every one needs to enter the Church for salvation (Cantate Domino, Council of Florence) and dejure, in principle, in theory and known only to God a person can be saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.
Placing invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire under the subheading Outside the Church NO Salvation however implies that they are relevant to the dogma or defacto exceptions.
For the Catechism to say that the baptism of water is needed for only those who know about Jesus and the Church could imply that those saved in invincible ignorance are defacto known to us in the present time. It implies that we know these particular cases and so we cannot say that everyone on earth with no exception needs Catholic Faith and the baptism of desire for salvation: to avoid the fires of Hell.
Also to suggest that only those who ‘know’ need the baptism of water for salvation would imply that Fr. Leonard Feeney was excommunicated not for disobedience but for heresy. It would also imply that the excommunication was wrongly lifted by the Catholic Church without the priest having to recant or make changes in his writing. It also implies that the popes, saints and Fr. Leonard Feeney were wrong in saying everyone needs to be an explicit member of the Church for salvation. It would also be a contradiction of three Councils which defined the dogma in an extra ordinary mode. The ‘dogma’ is referred to in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 as the ‘infallible statement’.
For a priest to knowingly say that there are defacto exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is a first class heresy and a mortal sin. He is refuting the Nicene Creed in which we pray, “I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins” and “I believe in the Holy Spirit the Holy Catholic Church”. It was the Holy Spirit which guided the Magisterium of the Church to teach over the centuries that outside the church there is no salvation.
A priest, who knowingly continues in this error, even after being informed, is in manifest public heresy and is not to offer Mass without receiving absolution in the Confessional and making public amends; removing the sacrilege. Similarly it would be a sacrilege for a lay person knowingly in this error to receive the Eucharist. -Lionel Andrades
ERRORS IN THE CATECHISM ? eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2012/01/errors-in-catechism.html
Practically everyone needs the baptism of water for salvation while in theory a person can be saved with the baptism of desire - Rector, Church Santa Maria Annunziata, Rome eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2012/01/practically-everyone-needs-baptism-of.html
In the Catechism of the Catholic Church why did Cardial Joseph Ratzinger not mention that the baptism of desire is not a defacto exception to the dogma outside the church no salvation nor to Vatican Council II ? eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2012/01/in-catechism-of-catholic-church-why-did.html
ETERNAL WORD TELEVISION NETWORK (EWTN) SAYS 'SUBMISSION TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE SOVEREIGN PONTIFF IS NECESSARY FOR SALVATION' eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2012/01/eternal-word-television-network-ewtn.html
CHURCH TEXT IS CRITICAL OF THE ARCHBISHOP OF BOSTON : REFERS TO IMPLICIT AND NOT EXPLICIT (TO US) BAPTISM OF DESIRE eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/12/church-text-critical-of-archbishop-of.html
VICARIATE OFFICES FOR YOUTH AND THE SICK ARE TEACHING ERRORS eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/12/vicariate-offices-for-youth-and-sick.html
YOUTUBE VIDEO QUESTIONS TO ASK THE CATHOLIC CHAPLAIN OR PROFESSOR eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/12/youtube-video-questions-to-ask-catholic.html
PROFESSION OF FAITH: I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/12/profession-of-faith-i-believe-in-holy.html
DID THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949 CONTRADICT THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS? NO eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/12/did-letter-of-holy-office-1949.html
ROME VICARIATE HIT BY THE RICHARD CUSHING ERROR : Centro Della pastorale sanitaria says the baptism of water is not defacto needed for the salvation of all on earth eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/12/rome-vicariate-hit-by-richard-cushing.html
BOSTON ARCHDIOCESE WEBSITE SAYS NOSTRA AETATE DISMISSES CHURCH INTEREST IN BAPTIZING JEWS AND AFFIRMS GOD’S COVENANT WITH THEM : NOWHERE DOES VATICAN COUNCIL II MAKE THIS CLAIM eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/12/boston-archdiocese-website-says-nostra.html
CATHOLIC ANSWERS SUCCUMBS TO THE RICHARD CUSHING ERROR eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/12/catholic-answers-succumbs-to-richard.html
MSGR.JOSEPH FENTON AND FR. WILLIAM MOST DID NOT NOTICE THE RICHARD CUSHING ERROR eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/12/msgrjoseph-fenton-and-fr-william-most.html
USCCB REPORT MAKES ALLOWANCE FOR THE RICHARD CUSHING ERROR eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/12/usccb-report-makes-allowance-for.html
FR.LEONARD FEENEY AND HIS COMMUNITIES HAVE ACCEPTED THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE PER SE eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/12/frleonard-feeney-and-his-communities.html
ARCHBISHOP OF BOSTON CARDINAL RICHARD CUSHINGS LEGACY: FOLLOWERS INCLUDE USCCB, EWTN, CATHOLIC ANSWERS, SSPX, SEDEVACANTISTS MHFM eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/12/archbishop-of-boston-cardinal-richard.html
CARDINAL RATZINGER DID NOT VIOLATE THE PRINCIPLE OF NON CONTRADICTION AS CATHOLICS UNITED FOR THE FAITH IMPLY eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/search/label/Catholics%20United%20for%20the%20Faith
FR.TULLIO ROTONDO AFFIRMS CANTATE DOMINO, COUNCIL OF FLORENCE ON EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/08/frtullio-rotondo-affirms-cantate-domino.html#links
LEGIONARY OF CHRIST PRIEST FR.RAFAEL PASCUAL AFFIRMS CANTATE DOMINO, COUNCIL OF FLORENCE eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/search/label/Fr.Rafael%20Pascual%20L.C
CATHOLIC LAY PROFESSOR AT UNIVERSITA EUROPA DI ROMA AFFIRMS DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/search/label/Corrado%20Gnerre
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 11, 2012 18:00:24 GMT
Fr Feeney was excommunicated for heresy because he said his view on this issue was binding on all Catholics, and was readmitted because he agreed to hold it as a personal theological opinion rather than definitive Catholic doctrine. IF you say the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH is in error by not taking the rigorist view this does imply that you think it is definitive Catholic doctrine. You suggest no Catholic is entitled to believe Fr Feeney's readmission was an error, yet you refer to Cardinal Cushing in terms which implies ROme acted erroneously when it ruled in his favour against Fr Feeney.
|
|
|
Post by lionelandrades on Jan 21, 2012 11:01:55 GMT
hibernicus Fr Feeney was excommunicated for heresy because he said his view on this issue was binding on all Catholics, I do think you would find any magisterial text in which he makes this claim. Perhaps this is one of the media views in circulation. and was readmitted because he agreed to hold it as a personal theological opinion rather than definitive Catholic doctrine. Fr.Leonard Feeney taught that every one with no exception needs to enter the Church formally for salvation and there were no exceptions known to us. Here is the text of the dogma. catholicism.org/category/outside-the-church-there-is-no-salvationThe excommunciation for disobedience and not heresy was lifted without the priest having to recant. www.catholicism.org/downloads/Peter_Vere_SBC.pdfhibernicus IF you say the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH is in error by not taking the rigorist view this does imply that you think it is definitive Catholic doctrine. It depends how you interpret the Catechism. For the Catechism to say that the baptism of water is needed for only those who know about Jesus and the Church could imply that those saved in invincible ignorance are defacto known to us in the present time. It implies that we know these particular cases and so we cannot say that everyone on earth with no exception needs Catholic Faith and the baptism of desire for salvation: to avoid the fires of Hell. You would agree that we do not know any case of a person saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance ? If we do not know any such case how can it be an exception to the dogma ?
|
|
|
Post by lionelandrades on Jan 21, 2012 11:05:37 GMT
This is relevant to this post.
Saturday, January 21, 2012 APPEAL TO THE ARCHBISHOP OF LOS ANGELES THE MOST REVEREND JOSE H.GOMEZ The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in Los Angeles are mentioned on the website of the Sisters of St. Benedict Center,Worcester one of the communities who have canonical status. Little is known about the community in Los Angeles.
I sympathise with them since being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are not exceptions to the dogma, and neither are they even an issue relative to the dogma and this may not be known to their bishop. This error was the creation of the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits who also inserted it in Vatican Council II.
So I can understand the difficulty of the brothers in Los Angeles.
I wish I could place an appeal in one of the LA newspapers to get the attention of Archbishop Jose H.Gomez, the Archbishop of Los Angeles.
APPEAL
To
The Most Reverend José H. Gomez Archbishop of Los Angeles, Office of the Archbishop of Los Angeles, 3424 Wilshire Boulevard, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010-2241 USA Email: mediarelations@la-archdiocese.org
Dear Archbishop Jose Gomez,
Praised be Jesus and Our Lady.
I wish to call your attention to an unpleasant misunderstanding in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.
I am told that there is a community of Fr.Leonard Feeney in the archdiocese and the general misconception about them is that they reject the baptism of desire and the possibility of non Catholics being saved in invincible ignorance, since it is believed that this would contradict the ‘rigorist interpretation’ of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Common sense tells us that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are irrelevant to the dogma and magisterial teachings on this issue.(CCC 845, Dominus Iesus 20).
This issue has relevance since the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing assumed that there was salvation outside the church and that those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are explicitly known to us.
There is no magisterial text which claims that Fr. Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for disobedience. The excommunication was lifted by the Church without him having to recant or make changes in his writings.
Could you please clarify, something obvious and generally known, that there is no case of the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance known to us in the present time. So it cannot be an exception to the teaching outside the church there is no salvation.
We accept Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance) but know there is no case known to us in the present times of someone saved in invincible ignorance or with a good conscience.
We accept that all who are saved, are saved through Jesus and the Church (CCC 846) and this does not contradict the centruries old interpretation of the dogma which the secular media calls the ‘rigorist interpretation’.This was the interpretation of the popes, Church Councils, saints and Fr.Leonard Feeney and it is not contradicted by VaticanCouncil II or any magisterial text.
In Christ
Signed. Mr.Lionel Andrades E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com ________________________________________________
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 21, 2012 21:31:10 GMT
You say that the Jesuits incorporated erroneous doctrine into Vatican II, then you say that your interpretation is not contradicted by Vatican II. You can't have it both ways.
|
|
|
Post by lionelandrades on Jan 26, 2012 9:24:08 GMT
You say that the Jesuits incorporated erroneous doctrine into Vatican II,
The Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing said that there were exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Jesuits supported him. They later placed the same information in Vatican Council II i.e there can be non Catholics saved in invincile ignorance and the baptism of desire. They assumed that those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire were defacto exception to the centuries old interpretation of the dogma. This was also the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
However in their insertion in Vatican Council II (LG 16 etc) they 'forgot' to mention that those saved in invincible ignorance etc are exceptions to the dogma. Perhaps they were blocked by conservatives. So all that got through in Vatican Council II was that there can be people saved in invincile ignorance etc. This is no problem. This is acceptable.As long as it is not implied that these cases are not exceptions to the dogma outside the church there is no salvation.
then you say that your interpretation is not contradicted by Vatican II. You can't have it both ways.
My interpretation is the centuriues- old interpretation of the popes, Councils and saints. The traditional interpretation is in accord with Vatican Council II.
I do not say like the Archbishop that there are defacto known exceptions to the dogma. I do not say that outside the church there is salvation. I do not assume that the baptism of desire is visible to us.
|
|
|
Post by lionelandrades on Jan 26, 2012 9:25:52 GMT
Tuesday, January 24, 2012 WHY DOES THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN CALIFORNIA EXPECT FR.LEONARD FEENEY’S COMMUNITY TO ASSUME THAT THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS AN EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA OUTSIDE THE CHURCH NO SALVATION? Can the Deacons in Los Angeles affirm the dogma like Fr.Leonard Feeney and also maintain that there is no case of the baptism of desire that we know of and, the baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma ? There is no known case known to us of a person saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance. So since we do not know any such explicit case how can they be exceptions to the dogma outside the church no salvation. For it to be an exception to the centuries-old interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus we would personally have to know these ‘exceptions’ on earth. Vatican Council II does not state that we know these cases of persons saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) and the baptism of desire. Neither does Vatican Council II or the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 state that these cases are exceptions to the dogma Cantate Domino, Council of Florence etc. The Catholic Church has not retracted this thrice defined dogma which says all need to convert into the Catholic Church to avoid Hell. It does not mention invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire as exceptions. It’s the Jewish Left owned media which assumes that those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are known-exceptions which contradict the dogma. The media also supported the Archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Richard Cushing’s new theory, of those saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance being exceptions to the dogma. So he assumed that there was salvation outside the Catholic Church. Catholics just took all this for granted without really thinking on this issue: how could cases we do not know be known exceptions to the dogma? How could the Church suddenly change its teachings? How could the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 contradict itself affirming the dogma and also the possibility of being saved with the baptism of desire ? How could Vatican Council II say all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation( AG 7) and also there can be non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) ? Jewish Left Rabbis, supported by Jewish political and economic power, have been telling Catholic bishops in California to end Church mission to the Jews. The bishops have publicly agreed with them. Their media still causes confusion on this issue and Catholics assume that it is the teaching of the Church. The bishops do not issue a clarification so as not to offend important people. Catholics are left in confusion. Why cannot one of the religious communities in California, USA who have received canonical status, unlike Fr. Leonard Feeney’s community, affirm the ‘rigorist interpretation’ of the dogma and also accept the possibility of people being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire,since these cases are known only to God ? Why cannot the religious order priests and nuns also affirm the dogma as it was interpreted for centuries and also affirm the possibility of non Catholics being saved in invincible ignorance, the seeds of the Word (Vatican Council II), a good conscience, in partial communion with the Church etc ? Can the Deacons in Los Angeles affirm the dogma like Fr.Leonard Feeney and also maintain that there is no case of the baptism of desire that we know of ? Can the Deacons say the baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma ? Does a candidate with a religious vocation to the Archdiocese of Los Angeles have to beleive that the baptism of desire is visible to us and so an exception to the dogma ? Is this a vocational requirement ? -Lionel Andrades Saturday, January 21, 2012 APPEAL TO THE ARCHBISHOP OF LOS ANGELES THE MOST REVEREND JOSE H.GOMEZ eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2012/01/appeal-to-archbishop-of-los-angeles.html
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 26, 2012 23:42:22 GMT
Mr Andrades: Let me give you some lessons in logic and in elementary Catholic theology: (1) Catholic theology operates on a principle of greater and lesser authority, and only a definite declaration of the magisterium gives certainty. Your rigorist interpretation of the doctrine of "extra ecclesia nulla salus" has certainly been widely held within the Church, but not universally and many great saints and weighty theologians have disagreed with it. In declaring that every Catholic is bound to profess it publicly and that anyone who does not do so is automatically in mortal sin and excommunicated, you are usurping the authority of the Papacy. You do not put this forward as a hypothesis and subject yourself to the judgement of the Church; you set yourself up as the sole judge, from whom there can be no appeal. (2) Many of the actions of the Church imply a view which is incompatible with yours - for example, the veneration of martyrs who died without baptism (I have heard it said that when Fr Feeney said Mass he always omitted the name of St Lucy, who was a martyr of this type - if this is true, such unilateral tampering with the Canon of the Mass for the sake of a personal theological theory was an act of the grossest presumption), the permission given to Eastern Rite churches reconciled with ROme to venerate as saints members of those Churches who lived before the reconciliation and thus died in schims, and so forth.
(3) Similarly, even if the Magisterium were to rule at some time in the future that your interpretation of EENS was correct, it would still not mean that those who in good faith deny it now are in mortal sin, as you claim. St Thomas Aquinas, St Bernard of Clairvaux, and St Catherine of Siena all denied the Immaculate COnception on the basis of substantial theological difficulties which they stated, and which wer subsequently resolved, and it has now been infallibly declared that the Immaculate Conception is undeniable Catholic doctrine. Your view that anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of EENS is NOW in mortal sin implies that these saints lived and died in mortal sin, that they committed sacrilege every time they said mass or received Communion, and that the Church erred in canonising them and declaring them Doctors of the Church. IF you maintain this position, you are exalting the private opinion of Fr Feeney above the Church and the Pope and to all intents and purposes denying that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit - yet at the same time you maintain that no-one an be saved outside the Church. I once heard the Feeneyite doctrine defined as "There is no salvation outside the Church, to which it is a mortal sin to belong", but I never saw the full force of this until I read and analysed your ravings. (4) Lastly, your statement that because we cannot know for certain that any individual has been saved in invincible ignorance or by baptism of desire, it is therefore legitimate to deny that anyone can be saved in this manner, is exactly comparable to the view that the well-known principle that we cannot and should not say that any individual is in Hell allows us to hold as a legitimate opinion that no-one can be damned, or that no-one has been damned, and to excommunicate everyone who disagrees with these views. The fact is that we are repeatedly warned by Our Lord Himself and by the Church that we CAN be damned, and while there have been theologians who argued that we can hope that no-one HAS been damned, this is very much a minority position and no-one to my knowledge has ever maintained that its proponents were entitled to excommunicate by their own self-professed authority everyone who disagreed with them.
This is a very busy forum and we have many issues of importance to discuss. We don't have time to waste on explaining elementary logic to people who are too ignorant to understand it, too proud to consider the possibility that they might be in error, and so vain that they claim that they alone possess the keys of the kingdom of heaven. THis is your second and final warning. You may argue for the Feeneyite hypothesis as one theological opinion among others, to stand or fall by the weight of evidence; but if you present it as irreformable Catholic doctrine, or profess once more to excommunicate everyone who disagrees with you, I will ban you and delete all your posts. Is this clear?
|
|
|
Post by lionelandrades on Jan 27, 2012 11:40:42 GMT
Mr Andrades: Let me give you some lessons in logic and in elementary Catholic theology: (1) Catholic theology operates on a principle of greater and lesser authority, and only a definite declaration of the magisterium gives certainty. Lionel: Correct. The Magisterium has defined the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus three times. There is also no Church document which says that the dogma was retracted or changed. Your rigorist interpretation of the doctrine of "extra ecclesia nulla salus" has certainly been widely held within the Church, but not universally and many great saints and weighty theologians have disagreed with it. Lionel: It is not my rigorist interpretation . This is the official teaching of the Church for centuries and the text of the dogma is available on line. In declaring that every Catholic is bound to profess it publicly and that anyone who does not do so is automatically in mortal sin and excommunicated, you are usurping the authority of the Papacy. Lionel: Fr. Tissa Balasuriya OMI was ecommunicated by Pope John Paul II for denying an ex cathedra dogma. (2) Many of the actions of the Church imply a view which is incompatible with yours - for example, the veneration of martyrs who died without baptism (I have heard it said that when Fr Feeney said Mass he always omitted the name of St Lucy, who was a martyr of this type - if this is true, such unilateral tampering with the Canon of the Mass for the sake of a personal theological theory was an act of the grossest presumption), the permission given to Eastern Rite churches reconciled with ROme to venerate as saints members of those Churches who lived before the reconciliation and thus died in schims, and so forth. Lionel: I do not have problem with this issue and this is not the issue under discussion.Also I can defend the dogma independent of Fr.Leonard Feeney so do not assume that what you read in the secular liberal newspapers about him is also my opinion. (3) Similarly, even if the Magisterium were to rule at some time in the future that your interpretation of EENS was correct, it would still not mean that those who in good faith deny it now are in mortal sin, as you claim. Lionel: It is the teaching of the Church that a person commits a grave sin if it is something grave and he knows about it and still goes ahead knowingly. You know. St Thomas Aquinas, St Bernard of Clairvaux, and St Catherine of Siena all denied the Immaculate COnception on the basis of substantial theological difficulties which they stated, and which wer subsequently resolved, and it has now been infallibly declared that the Immaculate Conception is undeniable Catholic doctrine. Lionel: It would be a mortal sin today. Please read the case of Fr.Tissa Balasuriya OMI. Your view that anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of EENS is NOW in mortal sin implies that these saints lived and died in mortal sin, that they committed sacrilege every time they said mass or received Communion, and that the Church erred in canonising them and declaring them Doctors of the Church. IF you maintain this position, you are exalting the private opinion of Fr Feeney above the Church and the Pope and to all intents and purposes denying that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit - yet at the same time you maintain that no-one an be saved outside the Church. Lionel: It is the holy Spirit which guided the Catholic Church to teach the centuries old interpretation of the dogma. This is the teaching of the Church before and after Vatican Council II. There is lot of misinformation on this subject in the secular media so I can understand your difficulty. I once heard the Feeneyite doctrine defined as "There is no salvation outside the Church, to which it is a mortal sin to belong", but I never saw the full force of this until I read and analysed your ravings. Lionel: Here is the text of the dogma. Outside the Church there is no Salvation (Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus) “Outside the Church there is no salvation” (extra ecclesiam nulla salus) is a doctrine of the Catholic Faith that was taught By Jesus Christ to His Apostles, preached by the Fathers, defined by popes and councils and piously believed by the faithful in every age of the Church. Here is how the Popes defined it: • “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.) • “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.) • “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.) -Catholicism (4) Lastly, your statement that because we cannot know for certain that any individual has been saved in invincible ignorance or by baptism of desire, it is therefore legitimate to deny that anyone can be saved in this manner, Lionel: False. We do not know deny that anyone can be saved in this manner. We only know that we do not know any such case. is exactly comparable to the view that the well-known principle that we cannot and should not say that any individual is in Hell allows us to hold as a legitimate opinion that no-one can be damned, or that no-one has been damned, and to excommunicate everyone who disagrees with these views. Lionel: Hell is a dogma of the Church and so we believe in it. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus is a dogma of the Church and so we believe in it. This is a very busy forum and we have many issues of importance to discuss. We don't have time to waste on explaining elementary logic to people who are too ignorant to understand it, too proud to consider the possibility that they might be in error, and so vain that they claim that they alone possess the keys of the kingdom of heaven. THis is your second and final warning. You may argue for the Feeneyite hypothesis as one theological opinion among others, to stand or fall by the weight of evidence; but if you present it as irreformable Catholic doctrine, or profess once more to excommunicate everyone who disagrees with you, I will ban you and delete all your posts. Is this clear? Lionel: I present it as a defined Catholic teaching and I do not deny it. It is irrelevant to me if you ban me from this Board. I have presented it to you in charity.
|
|