Website Says Feeneyism Is Heresy Instead Of Cushingism

Home Forums All Things Catholic Website Says Feeneyism Is Heresy Instead Of Cushingism

This topic contains 18 replies, has 2 voices, and was last updated by  Lionel 3 years, 5 months ago.

Viewing 19 posts - 1 through 19 (of 19 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #2098

    Lionel
    Member

    [b:16ukos1f]TRADITIONALIST WEBSITE LISTS FEENEYISM AS A HERESY INSTEAD OF CUSHINGI[/b:16ukos1f]SM
    A traditionalist website has listed the heresies of the past and among the modern heresies has been placed-Feeneyism.

    [i:16ukos1f]The heresy is [b:16ukos1f]Cushingism [/b:16ukos1f]and not Feeneyism.[/i:16ukos1f]
    Cushingism says there is salvation outside the Church implying that those saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire are explicitly known to us and so contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The dogma says all need to convert into the church for salvation.

    Cushingism gets its name from the Archbishop of Boston Richard Cushing who in the 1940’s rejected the centuries-old interpretation of the dogma.

    Richard Cushing opposed Fr. Leonard Feeney who held the traditional teaching on the dogma outside the church there is no salvation. He was supported by the Jesuits and the Jewish Left media in Boston.

    The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 addressed to Cardinal Cushing mentioned ‘the dogma’ which was interpreted consistently for centuries. It was the same interpretation as that of Fr. Leonard Feeney.

    The Letter also mentions the possibility of a person being saved with the baptism of desire but nowhere says that it is an exception to the dogma or that these cases are explicitly known to us.

    Likewise Vatican Council II maintained the traditional teaching and the interpretation of Fr. Leonard Feeney. Ad Gentes 7 states all need to enter the Church for salvation with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water. Lumen Gentium 16 mentions the possibility of non Catholics being saved in invincible ignorance. Again, contrary to Cushingism it does not state that these cases are explicitly known to us or are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

    Dominus Iesus says salvation is available for all however to receive it one needs to enter the Church, the Church is necessary. (N.20).

    Cushingism refutes this teaching and says that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are exceptions.Cushingites claim Fr.Leonard Feeney rejected these ‘exceptions’ to the dogma and so held the ancient ‘rigorist’ interpretation.Cushingites assume that implicit baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma. This is irrational.

    Cushingism is a widespread modern heresy in the Catholic Church.
    -Lionel Andrades

    THE HOLY FATHER POPE BENEDICT XVI IS A CUSHINGITE
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com … vi-is.html

    #10247

    LARobert
    Participant

    While some of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart, as pseudo-relgious order founded by the woman Fr. Feeney derived his teachings from have been received back into the Church, and it was the later Cardinal Archbishop of Boston who promulgated the letter, it was the Holy OFfice, (now the Office of Doctrine and the Faith) which sent the letter to Boston to be published with the approval and blessings of Pope Pius XII. The letter condemning the very narrow and strict defining teachings of the St. Benedict Center is quoted in part below.

    [quote:1shoscyd]…We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things which are contained in the word of God, whether it be Scripture or Tradition, and are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, not only through solemn judgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office (<Denzinger>, n. 1792).

    Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.

    However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.

    Now, in the first place, the Church teaches that in this matter there is question of a most strict command of Jesus Christ. For He explicitly enjoined on His apostles to teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever He Himself had commanded (Matt. 28: 19-20).

    Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be incorporated by baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth.

    Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.

    Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.

    In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man’s final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (<Denzinger>, nn. 797, 807).

    The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.

    However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.

    These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, <On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ> (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.

    Discussing the members of which the Mystical Body is-composed here on earth, the same august Pontiff says: “Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.”

    Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who “are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire,” and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition “in which they cannot be sure of their salvation” since “they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church” (AAS, 1. c., p. 243). With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution, <Singulari quadam>, in <Denzinger>, n. 1641 ff.; also Pope Pius IX in the encyclical letter, <Quanto conficiamur moerore>, in <Denzinger>, n. 1677).

    But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: “For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him” (Heb. 11:6). The Council of Trent declares (Session VI, chap. <img src=” title=”Cool” />: “Faith is the beginning of man’s salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children” (<Denzinger>, n. 801).

    From what has been said it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical <From the Housetops>, fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without.

    From these declarations which pertain to doctrine, certain conclusions follow which regard discipline and conduct, and which cannot be unknown to those who vigorously defend the necessity by which all are bound of belonging to the true Church and of submitting to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and of the Bishops “whom the Holy Ghost has placed . . . to rule the Church” (Acts 20:28).

    Hence, one cannot understand how the St. Benedict Center can consistently claim to be a Catholic school and wish to be accounted such, and yet not conform to the prescriptions of canons 1381 and 1382 of the Code of Canon Law, and continue to exist as a source of discord and rebellion against ecclesiastical authority and as a source of the disturbance of many consciences.

    Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a “Defender of the Faith,” and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities, and has not even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons because of his serious violations of his duties as a religious, a priest, and an ordinary member of the Church.

    Finally, it is in no wise to be tolerated that certain Catholics shall claim for themselves the right to publish a periodical, for the purpose of spreading theological doctrines, without the permission of competent Church authority, called the “<imprimatur,>“ which is prescribed by the sacred canons.

    Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after “Rome has spoken” they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church “only by an unconscious desire.” Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.[/quote:1shoscyd]
    As to Unum Sanctum, the problem with it being used as an infallible pronouncement is that it only appears in parts as the original Bull has been lost, it seems that it was a reply to a statement by King Philip IV, King of France and cannot be understood outside the context of a conflict between the increasing power of secular rulers in France and England attempts to tax the clergy to support warfare not authorized by the Pope. To be an Infallible statement of the Pope, it would have had to be addressed to the entire Church, and fulfil the other requirements of an Ex Cathedra statement. As it seems that it was addressed to Rulers of countries which had felt that their authority was superior to the Pope when it came to taxing the Church and clergy, and to enter into wars against other Catholic Kingdoms, it was not applied to all, therefore not Infallible.

    #10248

    Lionel
    Member

    LARobert

    Firstly the Catholic religious community Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary is recognized by the Catholic Church. They have received canonical status in the diocese of Worcester, USA:
    Nowhere in the Letter of the Holy Office which you have quoted does it say that Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for heresy. He was excommunicated for disobedience. He did not go to Rome when called to defend himself.The excommunication was lifted without him having to recant or make any changes in his writings. http://www.catholicism.org/downloads/Peter_Vere_SBC.pdf

    The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary still hold the same beliefs as their founder Fr. Leonard Feeney. He taught that every one needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church and there are no exceptions. For him the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were not exceptions to the dogma.
    Regarding the dogma Unam Sanctam, if you say that there were no real ex cathedra dogmas then which is ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible statement’ mentioned in this Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which you have quoted here and which was issued during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII ?
    http://catholicism.org/category/outside … -salvation

    The Letter of the Holy Office also did not mention any defacto known baptism of desire or being saved in invincible ignorance so it was a criticism of the Archbishop of Boston who postulated that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma implying that these cases are explicitly known and so are an exceptions.For him there was defacto known salvation outside the Catholic Church.

    #10250

    LARobert
    Participant

    If you re-read the posting, I mentioned that some of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart were a pseudo-religious order. While the group in Wooster was recieved back into communion, and are premitted to teach their position, it was also agreed that it was just that a position or belief that was not Dogmatic. As the Church has not officially pronounced on the subject they must admit that it is only an opinion and not Dogmatic. The other groups that have not been reconciled, some who live here in Los Angeles, hold the hard line position of Extra Ecclesia to be Dogmatic, and despite the Holy Office’s guidance on the subject hold their postion to be the only one.

    As to Fr. Feeney’s excommunication, while the Slaves hold he was not excommunicated for his positon on the subject, but for his disobedience, as a manner of arguing that the Church did not find his position in error, that is a canard. His disobedience was in fact not ending the public teaching of Extra Ecclesia in the narrow sense he and “Sr.” Catherine Goddard Clarke, who first promoted the positon, and later dressed as a nun even though she never went though any religious formation, and remained married. Fr. Feeney and the Slaves who were never canonically erected, lived in disobedience until Fr. Feeney was recieved back into the full communion with the Church. Cardinal Mederos made it clear it was out of the love for souls, and desire that the Church show compassion not Fr. Feeney’s repentance that prompted the resumption of communion of the adged and ill Fr. Feeney.

    Here however is a chronology of Fr. Feeney’s actions and those of the Church.

    On April 18, 1949, Fr. Feeney was suspended from his priestly duties and Catholics were forbidden to take part in the activities of St. Benedict Center. Fr. Feeney responded the next day by saying that his removal from St. Benedict Center was invalid, One of his superiors, Fr. Louis Gallagher, called Fr. Feeney to tell him that the sanctions would be lifted if he left St. Benedict Center and went to Holy Cross College. But Fr. Feeney refused to leave. He invoked his conscience as a justification for remaining at St. Benedict Center. He said in a statement prepared for the press:” ‘IT WAS AND IS A MATTER OF CONSCIENCE to me in the sanctity of my priesthood, as I openly declared to every superior I could contact.’ “[Ibid., p. 125.] A few days later, on April 21, 1949, Fr. Feeney received another command from his Provincial Superior to go to Holy Cross College. This command was given to him in virtue of Fr. Feeney’s vow of obedience. It was therefore binding under pain of mortal sin. Fr. Feeney again refused to go.

    Three and a half months later, on August 8, 1949, the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office wrote to Archbishop Cushing on the subject of the necessity of the Church for salvation. [NB: The full text of the letter was published in October of 1952 in The American Ecclesiastical Review CXXVII, 4 (Oct., 1952), pp. 307-315.] This decree of the Holy Office was voted on in plenary session on Wednesday, July 27, 1949. The Prefect of the Holy Office, Pope Pius XII, approved the decree on Thursday, July 28, 1949. This decree was a response to the controversy that arose in the wake of Fr. Feeney’s interpretation of the doctrine “outside the Church there is no salvation.” Even though this decree was approved by Pope Pius XII who, as we mentioned, was the Prefect of the Holy Office, Fr. Feeney would later refer to it as” ‘This heretical letter…’ “[Thid.]

    Considering that the acts of disobedience on the part of Fr. Feeney were both grave and numerous and that he intended to persevere in the dispositions that produced these acts and thus had no intention of amending his ways, Fr. Feeney was expelled from the Jesuit Order on October 10, 1949. On September 4, 1952, Archbishop Cushing summoned Fr. Feeney to appear before him no later than October 4, 1952. He called upon Fr. Feeney to make his submission to the local ordinary and to the Holy See. Fr. Feeney was informed that the Congregation of the Holy Office, with the approval of Pope Pius XII, had put him, Fr. Feeney. and St. Benedict Center under interdict.

    On September 24, 1952, a letter was sent from St. Benedict Center to Pope Pius XII in which the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office was charged with heresy. The heresy, the letter said, was contained in the August 8, 1949, letter entitled “Letter of the Holy Office to tile Archbishop of Boston.”

    On October 25, 1952, Cardinal Pizzardo, who was then the Secretary of the Holy Office, wrote to Fr. Feeney from Rome, and in the name of the Holy Office. He said:

    “The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office has been obliged repeatedly to make your teaching and conduct in the Church the object of its special care and attention, and recently, after having again carefully examined and calmly weighed all the evidence collected in your cause, it has found it necessary to bring this question to a conclusion.

    “However, His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, in His tender regard and paternal solicitude for the eternal welfare of souls committed to His supreme charge, has decreed that, before any other measure be carried into effect, you be summoned to Rome for a hearing. Therefore, in accordance with the express bidding and by the special authority of the Supreme Pontiff, you are hereby ordered to proceed to Rome forthwith and there to appear before the Authorities of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office as soon as possible” [Ibid., p.150.]

    Fr. Feeney did not obey this summons. He responded instead with a letter dated October 30, 1952. The following month, in November of 1952, Fr. Feeney received a second letter summoning him to Rome. He was ordered to present himself before the Holy Office no later than December 31, 1952. He was told that if he failed to obey, his disobedience would be made public along with the canonical penalties. Fr. Feeney was also informed that his expenses for the trip to Rome would be paid by the Apostolic Delegate.

    But Fr. Feeney refused to comply with this second command to appear before the Holy Office. Instead he responded with a long letter dated December 2, 1952. In early January 1953, Fr. Feeney received yet a third letter from Rome. By this letter he was ordered to appear before the Holy Office no later than January 31, 1953, under pain of excommunication for failure to appear.

    Fr. Feeney refused to go. Once again he disobeyed the command of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, and this for the third time. He responded with another letter, dated January 13, 1953, in which he accused the Holy Office of outrageous, barbarous behavior and with heresy. On February 4, 1953, the Holy Office met in Plenary Session and declared Fr. Leonard Feeney to be excommunicated. The decree of excommunication was dated February 13, 1953. The text is as follows:

    “Since the priest Leonard Feeney, a resident of Boston (Saint Benedict Center), who for a long time has been suspended from his priestly duties on account of grave disobedience of Church Authority, being unmoved by repeated warnings and threats of incurring excommunication ipso facto, has not submitted, the Most Eminent and Reverend Fathers, charged with safeguarding matters of faith and morals, in a Plenary Session held on Wednesday, 4 February 1953, declared him excommunicated with all the effects of the law.

    “On Thursday, 12 February 1953, Our Most Holy Lord Pius XII, by Divine Providence Pope, approved and confirmed the decree of the Most Eminent Fathers, and ordered that it be made a matter of public law.

    “Given at Rome, at the Headquarters of the Holy Office, 13 February 1953.” [Ibid., p. 158.]

    What is so strange about the whole thing is that when Fr. Feeney was given the opportunity to appear before the Holy Office, where he could defend his charge of heresy and his interpretation of the doctrine “outside the Church there is no salvation,” he refused to take it. Is that the behavior of a great defender of Catholic orthodoxy? Would not a great defender of Catholic truth welcome such an opportunity to defend the truth? But Fr. Feeney did not defend the truth as he saw it. He did not rise to the occasion. Instead he stayed home. He stayed home and was excommunicated for it.

    #10256

    Lionel
    Member

    You agree then that the Catholic religious community Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary is recognized by the Catholic Church. They have received canonical status in the diocese of Worcester, USA.

    Also nowhere in the Letter of the Holy Office which you have quoted does it say that Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for heresy. Also the excommunication was lifted without him having to recant or make any changes in his writings you do agree.

    The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary still hold the same beliefs as their founder Fr. Leonard Feeney. He taught that every one needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church and there are no exceptions. This was the teaching of the popes and saints so how could he be excommunicated for saying the same thing ? For him the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were not exceptions to the dogma. We do not know anyone saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance.

    Which is ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible statement’ mentioned in this Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which you have quoted here and which was issued during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII ?
    Here are some related links:

    UK BISHOPS AGREE WITH SOUTHWARK VOCATION REPORT ? : BAPTISM OF DESIRE CASES VISIBLE
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com … html#links

    USCCB, CCBEW, CATHOLIC ANSWERS, CUF IMPLY POPE PIUS XII SUGGESTED IN THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE THAT THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE WAS AN EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com … html#links

    CONFUSION OVER THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com … ffice.html

    DID THE CARDINAL WHO ISSUED THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949 ASSUME THAT THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE WAS VISIBLE AND AN EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA ?
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com … -holy.html

    ECCLESSIOLOGY OF ENGLISH BISHOPS HIT BY TWO ERRORS 1) VISIBLE BAPTISM OF DESIRE 2) FR.LEONARD FEENEY EXCOMMUNICATED FOR THE SAME VIEW AS POPES, SAINTS AND DOGMA OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com … it-by.html

    CATHOLIC BISHOPS CONFERENCE OF ENGLAND AND WALES SAYS THOSE SAVED WITH THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE, INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE ARE VISIBLE TO US
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com … gland.html

    ECUMENISM OF THE ENGLISH BISHOPS CONTRARY TO VATICAN COUNCIL II
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com … html#links

    CATHOLIC LAY PROFESSOR AT UNIVERSITA EUROPA DI ROMA AFFIRMS DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com … rsita.html

    LEGIONARY OF CHRIST PRIEST FR.RAFAEL PASCUAL AFFIRMS CANTATE DOMINO, COUNCIL OF FLORENCE
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com … afael.html

    FR.TULLIO ROTONDO AFFIRMS CANTATE DOMINO, COUNCIL OF FLORENCE ON EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com … html#links

    CANTATE DOMINO, COUNCIL OF FLORENCE ON EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS IS DE FIDE AND NOT CONTRADICTED BY VATICAN COUNCIL II- Fr. Nevus Marcello O.P
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com … ce-on.html

    BRAZILIAN PRIEST SAYS VATICAN COUNCIL II DOES NOT CONTRADICT DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com … html#links

    CATHOLIC PRIESTS IN ROME AGREE WITH FR.LEONARD FEENEY: THERE IS NO BAPTISM OF DESIRE THAT WE CAN KNOW OF
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com … html#links

    DAPHNE MCLEOD’S COMMENT SHOULD BE A WAKE UP CALL FOR SSPX, TRADITIONALISTS AND ENGLISH BISHOPS
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com … html#links

    #10257

    LARobert
    Participant

    The Letter from the Holy Office came as the final warning to Fr. Feeney before the Excommunication. Once again his Excommunication was imposed for his disobedience, he refused to stop publishing and preaching his teachings, he refused to return to the Jesuit house where he was ordered to remove himself to. He remained at the Slaves house which was not canonically erected.

    That one of the houses (Worchester) has now been rehabilitated and allowed to hold the position they do on Extra Ecclesia, and not condemn Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, is a new event. This one house is now cannonically erected, but was not when Fr. Feeney was in disobedience, the other houses have not been reconciled because they are not willing to maintain their strict opinon regarding Extra Ecclesia without condemning the writings of Pope Pius XII and other Popes and Theologians.

    Again, Cardinal Mederios of Boston commented on the reception of Fr. Feeney back into the Church that it was because of the love and compassion of the Church that Fr. Feeney’s excommunication was lifted, no because the Church held his hard line position to be correct.

    As to the articles you have posted, they all come from your own blog, and would based on that take the Feenyite position. Hardly an unbiased source. Like many who follow the Slaves and the Feeney spin on things. The Church does not reject the possiblity of the Feeney position, it simply and openly has stated that as we do not know the extent of God’s plan of salvation, that Catholics may believe God has provided other ways that somone who has not heard the Truths of the Faith can be saved. All of those are based on the once sacrifice of our Lord on the Cross, and the superabundant graces that are distributed by the Church, and not by false religions. To take one very narrow interpretation of the issue and on one’s own authority exclude the others before the Church has made an official declaration is quite prideful and presumes one’s superiority to the Magesterium.

    There is another parallel today. The Society of St. Pius X, who are very active in the condemnation of Fr. Feeney and also have had their excommunication lifted, (remember only the Bishops were actually excommunicated, putting the priests and lay followers of the Society in peril of excommunication by following them.) However the Society remains without mandate or faculties because they thus far do not accept the authority of the Church. They pay lip service to the Pope, but continue to teach and act as if the Pope and Local Ordinaries do not exhist. The Society puts a spin on their position that they alone are the deposit of the pure faith, and that the Pope is not. So too the Slaves walk that fine line. What makes the Worcester group different is that they are allowed to teach the strict interpretation of Extra Ecclesia, but they also had to admit that it is not dogmatic, and that there are other as of yet defined postions including baptism of desire, and blood and invincible ignorance. The Feeney “brothers” who attend the Latin Mass at the parish I attend however condemn the Local bishop for not accepting their take on the subject, and have attempted to establish a priory in a one bedroom apartment without seeking the permission of the local ordinary, and have members of their priory who have no formation. Without canonical mission they cause discontent and foster disobedience to the local Ordinary by informing people that the Church is wrong and they are correct.

    #10258

    Lionel
    Member

    Thank you LARoberts for your informative report about the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in Los Angeles. They are mentioned on the websites 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.So I am glad that you know them personally .
    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. This was the creation of the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits there who also inserted it in Vatican Council II. Their bishop may not know this.

    The Church always accepted that a person can be saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire but never assumed that they were explicit cases and known cases and so exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This was the Richard Cushing Error which is widespread in the Catholic Church. So I can understand the difficulty the brothers have in Los Angeles.

    I am also glad that you have acknowledged that Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for disobedience and not heresy. He did not go to Rome when called, he did not accept a transfer, he called the Archbishop a heretic and was disobedient to him on doctrine/dogma.

    You have written:
    they are not willing to maintain their strict opinon regarding Extra Ecclesia without condemning the writings of Pope Pius XII and other Popes and Theologians.

    They affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus just as Fr.Leonard Feeney and they say that there is no baptism of desire that we know of which can be an exception to the dogma.
    Wouldn’t you agree with that ?
    This was the teaching of the popes in the ordinary magisterium and their quotations are available on the internet.
    This was the teaching of Pope Pius XII if you use the defacto-dejure analysis and not the irrational defacto-defacto analysis.

    The Letter said that de facto every one needs to enter the Church with no exception (it refers to ‘the dogma’) and de jure, in principle a person can be saved with the bapism of desire and this would be not known to us. These cases are known only to God. So the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 does not contradict the philosophical Principle of Non Contradiction.
    The Archbishop of Boston was saying that everyone needs to enter the Church defacto according to the dogma and the centuries old interpretation – but defacto there were exceptions ; there were those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. Since they were exceptions it is implied that we de facto know these cases. This is irrational. It also violates the Principle of Non Contradiction. How can you say everyone needs to de facto enter the Church and also say some people do not de facto have to enter the Church ? And you don’t even know who these people are.

    In Christ
    Lionel

    #10259

    LARobert
    Participant

    Lionel:

    Sadly there is much misinformation regarding Fr. Feeney, his excommunication and the lifting of the excommunication. Even more tragic is the misrepresentation of the Slaves in LA functioning as a canonically erected house. While one house was indeed received, with the understanding that holding the extreme postion of Extra Ecclesia is permitted of Catholics as long as it is not proclaimed as Dogmatic, but one of the Theological Opinons permitted on the subject. As the “Brothers” in Los Angeles are under the Canonical See of Archbishop Gomez, and were subject to Cardinal Mahony when the house in New England was received, they would have to submit to the Local Ordinary to erect a relgious house, and function within the Archdiocese. As the “Brothers” consist of older members who went through the formation which was typical of the Slaves in the 40’s and 50’s, and a couple of members with no formation or religious duties, the Archdiocese not myself would have to evaluate their application.

    As Catholics we must hold that it is by the Sacrifice of the Cross, our Lord’s passion and death as well as His rising from the dead that we come to salvation. All the graces of that action are dispensed through the means God gave us, ie the Catholic Church. What membership in that Church means is however a matter of contention between followers of Fr. Feeney and the Magestrium of the Church. Unfortunatly many of the followers of Fr. Feeney have taken the postion that the Church was and is wrong, and Fr. Feeney, was correct. Since there are a half dozen well respected Theologians who have written responses to the errors of Fr. Feeney who’s books are difficult to obtain nowadays and detracted by the followers of Fr. Feeney, I’ll post a link to the EWTN article by the late Fr. Most, who is a well respected, very orthodox writer and theologians. It covers the misrepresentations by the Slaves and their followers. Another by Karl Keating, and the Catholic Culture website.

    Mr. Keating writes: Ordered to stop teaching his interpretation, Feeney refused and was excommunicated, not technically for teaching heresy but for disobedience. He was reconciled to the Church before his death, and the excommunication was lifted. Some of his followers have tried to construe the reconciliation as a Vatican affirmation of Feeney’s theology, but, since the excommunication did not extend beyond a matter of obedience, the lifting of it did not extend any further.

    Mr Mazza of Catholic Culture writes: Fr. Feeney himself, beset with the mental and physical ailments of old age, was reportedly “reconciled” to the Church on November 22, 1972 in the St. Thomas More Bookstore in Cambridge, with the help of a group of members of the Center and some very indulgent diocesan officials. These officials neither pressed Fr. Feeney for a recantation of his theological errors nor even an apology for the harm he may have caused the faithful.

    And as I’ve mentioned before the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston commented that he was received back into the Church as an act of compassion to Fr. Feeney, not as an exceptance of his errors.

    Much like the SSPX, who incidentally have a massive anti Feeney campaign, the followers of Fr. Feeney seem to have decided that the Church is wrong and they are the only one’s who hold the “Lynch pin” doctrine as Fr. Feeney termed it. If Fr. Feeney was correct, then Blessed Pope Pius IX, and Venerable Pope Pius XII were heretical.

    http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/FEENEY.txt

    http://archive.catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040113.asp

    http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/ … N=31342233

    http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/ … fm?id=2650

    #10261

    Lionel
    Member

    LARoberts

    [quote:27q0qn61]While one house was indeed received, with the understanding that holding the extreme position of Extra Ecclesia is permitted of Catholics as long as it is not proclaimed as Dogmatic, but one of the Theological Opinions permitted on the subject[/quote:27q0qn61]
    What would you say is the extreme position of[i:27q0qn61] extra ecclesiam nulla salus [/i:27q0qn61]permitted of Catholics ?
    I am a lay Catholic and not a member of any of Fr. Leonard Feeney’s communities.
    I believe in the ‘dogma’, the ‘infallible teaching’ that Pope Pius XII mentioned in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.I agree with the dogma Cantate Domino, Council of Florence that every one with no exception needs to enter the Church for salvation. This was also what was taught by Fr. Leonard Feeney. I agree with the popes and saints who held the same view. They all knew for centuries that extra ecclesiam nulla salus was dogmatic.

    I agree that there can be people saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. However I believe that this is irrelevant to the dogma or the issue. I said I believe in the baptism of desire etc since this was made an issue by the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits.

    No one knows a single case of a person saved with the baptism of desire etc and there is no magisterial text, including Vatican Council II which states that these cases are exceptions defacto to any Church teaching or the dogma. The Church is the only Ark of Salvation (CCC 845) and the baptism of desire etc are not exceptions.

    Fr. William Most assumed that those saved with the baptism of desire etc are known to us and so are an exception to the dogma. This is irrational. It is also heresy implying that the dogma has defacto exceptions. EWTN, Catholic Culture’s Jeff Mirus, Michael Mazza have used the errors, the wrong assumption of Fr. William Most. Please see links for details.

    [b:27q0qn61]Probably the bishop of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary makes the same error as Fr. William Most.[/b:27q0qn61]

    It is important that the Slaves in LA recognize that finally the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are not an issue related to this subject.

    We can interpret the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 with a defacto-dejure, explicit-implicit, in theory-in practice analysis. If we do not use this analysis then we violate the Principle of Non Contradiction as does Fr. William Most.

    Would you have the e-mail contact number of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in LA? Probably they do not have one.
    Lionel

    [b:27q0qn61]MSGR.JOSEPH FENTON AND FR. WILLIAM MOST DID NOT NOTICE THE RICHARD CUSHING ERROR
    Informed Catholics still assume that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma outside the church no salvation and to Vatican Council II (LG 14,AG 7)[/b:27q0qn61]
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com … iam%20Most

    [b:27q0qn61]IN ANALYSING THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949 YOU ARE USING A DEFACTO-DEJURE ANALYSIS OR A DEFACTO-DEFACTO ANALYSIS.WHETHER YOU KNOW IT OR NOT YOUR USING ONE OF THE TWO [/b:27q0qn61]http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/11/in-analysing-letter-of-holy-office-1949.html

    [b:27q0qn61]CONFUSION OVER THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949 [/b:27q0qn61]http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/11/confusion-over-letter-of-holy-office.html

    [b:27q0qn61]REMEMBER THAT THE REPORT BY FR.WILLIAM MOST ON EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS IS NOT THE OFFICIAL TEACHING OF THE CHURCH: IT CONTAINS ERRORS AND HERESY [/b:27q0qn61]http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/11/remember-that-report-by-frwilliam-most.html

    [b:27q0qn61]CARDINAL RATZINGER DID NOT VIOLATE THE PRINCIPLE OF NON CONTRADICTION AS CATHOLICS UNITED FOR THE FAITH IMPLY [/b:27q0qn61]http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/11/cardinal-ratzinger-did-not-violate

    [b:27q0qn61]Trinity Communications of Jeff Mirus and Catholic Culture is a legal entity that is spreading falsehood about the Catholic Faith.[/b:27q0qn61]http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/search/label/Jeff%20Mirus

    [b:27q0qn61]ETERNAL WORD TELEVISION NETWORK (EWTN) SAYS ‘SUBMISSION TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE SOVEREIGN PONTIFF IS NECESSARY FOR SALVATION’ [/b:27q0qn61]http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/search/label/EWTN

    #10262

    Lionel
    Member

    LARoberts how would you respond to this issue considering the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart in LA and their understanding with Bishop Gomez.

    CANON LAWYER IN INDIANA NEEDS TO BE ASKED : IS BISHOP KEVIN RHOADES JURIDICALLY A CATHOLIC ?

    Evidence of the Fort Wayne Bend bishops denial of the Catholic Faith is on a website.

    Canon Lawyer Fr. Mark Gurtner (Judicial Vicar of the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend in Indiana) said, it was reported on the internet, that the jurisdiction of the case against Real Catholic TV.com lies in the Indiana diocese whose bishop is Kevin Rhoades.

    Bishop Kevin Rhoades when he was the bishop of Harrisburg, Pennsylavia had also asked apologist Robert Sungenis to remove the name ‘Catholic’ from this website Catholic Apologetics International (CAI).The issue was the Jewish Left.

    Bishop Kevin Rhoades also approved a website Robert Sungenis and the Jews and provided statements to Michael Forrest which are still there on this anti-Sungenis website.

    I had asked three questions of Bishop Rhoades and also written to other priests hoping they would answer them and so diffuse the tension at that time.The three questions were posted on the website Robert Sungenis and the Jews but were not answered. There was no answer also from ishop Kevin Rhoades. Robert Sungenis called Bishop Rhoades and Catholics United for the Faith, Steubenville, heretics.

    According to Canon Law a bishop is a juridical person and has to be a Catholic. He is obliged to affirm the teachings of the Catholic Church.If Bishop Rohades does not affirm the faith when asked it is a denial.

    1. Bishop Kevin Rhoades is denying an ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Outside the Church No Salvation). http://catholicism.org/category/outside … -salvation

    2. He is refusing to say that Judaism and other religions are not paths to salvation.

    3. He is refusing to say that Jews need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation (to avoid Hell).

    4. The Bishop in Indiana is assuming that those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are defacto known to us in the present times, since he considers them exceptions to the dogma and other magisterial teachings.

    5. Bishop Kevin Rhoades is assuming that there is some magisterial text which claims that those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are defacto exceptions to the dogma outside the church there is no salvation.

    This is all contrary to Vatican Council II (LG 14, AG 7), Dominus Iesus 20, extra ecclesiam nulla salus as explained by popes and Church Councils in the ordinary and extraordinary mode etc.

    Bishop Kevin Rhoades offers Holy Mass when it is a mortal sin to reject an ex cathedra dogma. He denies Church teachings on other religions and yet calls himself a ‘Catholic’.

    He uses his office to tell those who are faithful to the very teachings he rejects, not to use the word Catholic i.e apologists Robert Sungenis and Michael Voris.

    The denial of the faith is there in the four points he mentions to Michael Forrest on the website Robert Sungenis and the Jews. http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/ … ht_21.html

    The Canon Lawyer from Indiana who has said that the jurisdiction over the Real Catholic.TV.com lies in the diocese of Fort-Wayne South Bend where Marc Brammar the owner of Real Catholic TV.com lives, could also let us know if Bishop Kevin Rhoades has the right to juridically call himself a Catholic and to offer Holy Mass.
    -Lionel Andrades

    BISHOP KEVIN RHOADES DENIES THE CATHOLIC FAITH
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com … holic.html

    JEWISH CATHOLIC DAY OF REFLECTION TODAY
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com … n-day.html

    Will Bishops Allen Vigneron and Kevin Rhoades give permission for a website against Michael Vorris?
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com … kevin.html

    Questions for the Canon Lawyers:Can Archbishop Allen Vigneron and Bishop Kevin Rhoades be considered Catholic if they refuse to affirm in public the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com … s-can.html

    It’s a Free Country.. : A Catholic who rejects a defined dogma like outside the church no salvation is automatically excomunicated. He has no right to use the word ‘Catholic’.
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com … untry.html

    #10263

    LARobert
    Participant

    Lionel:

    Before the topic completely drifts, I ask you, yes or no, do dogs and cats go to heaven. Give me a Dogmatic reply.

    Much like the SSPX, the position of many Feeneites is a rather slippery slope. Having taken a position which Catholics are free to accept, or reject, followers of Fr. Feeney’s have positioned themselves to be the Judge of the Magesterium and the Pope. By asserting that one or another is a heretic because they do not take the Feeneyite positon, or assent to Fr. Feeney as the final authority on the subject. The Church has always taught that it is through the means that Christ gave us, ie the Catholic Church that the merits of the Cross are applied. Primarily through the Sacraments, but also through sacramentals, and good works when preformed in union with Christ, and His Church which means in a state of grace, with the inention of obtaining those merits for our own souls or those of the dead. While we may pray for the welfare body or soul of another living person, merits of our works may only be applied to ourselves or the dead. Now the Church has long before Fr. Feeney and his decision that he knew who was going to be excluded from heaven, does fly in the face of any number of Magesterial teachings, and approved Catholic practices. If we deny these long held and approved practices, then we as many Feeneyites have to make ourselves the judges of the Popes, and Magesterium. The Church has approved of the prayers for the dead, not just Catholics who have died, but of all the dead, that God would have mercy on their souls. The Church has for centuries approved of the offering of Masses for the repose of the souls of non-Catholics. The only provision is that it not be a public Mass, ie that the intentions be kept by the priest and the person who has requested the Mass. The reason for it being a private Mass is to prevent scandal. The Scandal is not that we pray for the souls of those who died outside visible union with the Church, but that some would misinterpret the action as stating that all religions are equal, and that someone is saved by the practice of Non-Catholic religions. Either the Church has misled us in allowing this practice, and must be rejected as a false religion, or we must admit that there is a basis for the belief that God instituted the Church for the salvation of souls, and that while not all are able to enter into communion through no fault of their own, God will provide them the graces needed to spend all eternity with Him.
    [quote:1mju4gq8]What would you say is the extreme position of extra ecclesiam nulla salus permitted of Catholics ?[/quote:1mju4gq8]
    Your question about the strict and narrow interpretation of EENS, is a bit dishonest. While it is permitted to hold the position, one cannot until the Church has officially pronounced on the issue proclaim it dogmatic, to the exclusion of the rest of the Catholic teaching on what other provisions the Church allows to be believed. You see I don’t hold to the Feeneyite postion, I admit that it is possible because the Church has not (regardless of what the Feeneyites claim) made a final dogmatic pronouncement. In addition either explicit or implicit holding that the Feeneyite position is the de-facto dogmatic position, is by at least implication, and from some Feeneyites explicit that Pope St. Pius X, Venerable Pope Pius IX and others are herectical for explaining and expounding on the teachings of the Church related to this issue, but including the possiblity of non-catholics coming to salvation. By doing so you are ignoring entire statements of the Church which allow us to accept as pious opinion that God has provided for the salvation of the Pagan and the non-catholic under the provisions discussed earlier.

    You also wish us to let you eat your cake and have it too. Discounting Fr. Most, and the majority of theologians, as well as Popes as not speaking for the Magesterium or with the Authority of the Magisterium, but demanding that we accept the Slaves, Fr. Feeney, Mrs. (sometimes Sr.) Catherine Goddard Clarke, or your website as the voice of the Magisterium because you say all others are heretics is quite a big role for you to take on.

    As to Mr. Voris, and others who have public postings on the internet, there is a bit of a fine line here. First Mr. Voris who does present himself as have a Bachelors in Sacred Theology, which seems valid, and does many times present very good and newsworthy issues, is like those you dismiss as not being the voice of the Magisterium, is himself not either. I like much of what he presents, but I don’t give him nor am I required to give him the same obedience that I give to the legitimate authority of the Ordinary of a Diocese. If the bishop is a heretic, there are established protocols for investigating such claims, under Canon Law, which he skips over. How this is connected with Abp. Gomez escapes me though.

    I can almost see why under the former Ordinary, Roger Cardinal Mahony the Slaves would not seek canonical status in LA, however under Abp Gomez, I see no reason for the Slaves to not present themselves for regularization. Except for Opus Dei, and the Anglican Ordinariate, there are no Latin Rite provisions for any order, society or other religous house to be erected without the approval of the local ordinary. They may remain canonically within his territory at his discretion. To do otherwise is contrary to the practice of the Church since the Council of Trent corrected such abuses.

    #10264

    Lionel
    Member

    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

    #10265

    LARobert
    Participant

    Lionel:

    Either we have viewed a different webpage, or you are inventing information from the Sisters of St. Benedict web-site. The only webpage I’ve seen does say, [quote:so17i2bc]Eventually, four other communities of Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary were formed — one each in New Hampshire, Ohio and California, and a second one in Massachusetts. All of these communities are committed to defending the Church’s doctrines and promoting the Faith through publishing and teaching.[/quote:so17i2bc]
    in it’s history section. Nowhere is Los Angeles mentioned, or that these other communities were received with their community back into the Church. If after reviewing the entire website, I may have missed what you are referring to, or if there is another secret site somewhere, please let me know. Otherwise I must surmise that it another of your inentions. A simple review of Canon Law governing Religious would tell you that the Bishop of Worster could only receive those who fall under his jurisdiction, and can only erect a canonilcal house within his own diocese. However you seem not to let facts interupt your arguments.

    As to the letter to Abp. Gomez, well you are free to write him or publish an open letter, moreover since you seem to have taken upon yourself the authority and ability to condemn as a heretic everyone from the Pope to the local dog-catcher, and misquote, revise and misrepresent Catholic teaching to the point of making a mokery of the Church. The ramblings on your blog cannont be taken seriously as the interpretations you extract from offical Church documents are simply not recognizable when compaired to the source documents.

    I did speak to one of the Brothers here today after Mass, and they warned me that your postings are in no way representitive of anything that they would ever endorse. Their argument with the Church is based (in their mind) on sound theology and history. They could not in charity comment on you or the information you have posted. The more you post here and after a prefunctory search of your information you have scattered across the web, prompt me to invoke the intercession of St. Dymphna for you. But it would seem that by standing up to your misrepresentation of facts, I will be, if I have not been already added to the list of heretics which in your supreme authority you see fit to promulgate with an authority higher (in your mind) than that of the Holy See.

    You’ve also yet to answer the question about the salvation of the souls of Cats and Dogs. A discussion which not only during my seminary formation but in that of most, clerics I’ve spoken with, liberal and traditional has come up. Yes or No, Lionel, what do you pronounce? Otherwise I await something credible, from a credible website, not your blog, which contorts simple statements into something quite different from the original to be posted by yourself.

    #10271

    Lionel
    Member

    Lionel:
    Before the topic completely drifts, I ask you, yes or no, do dogs and cats go to heaven. Give me a Dogmatic reply.

    Lionel:
    I would, if there was one (dogma).

    Much like the SSPX, the position of many Feeneites is a rather slippery slope.
    Lionel:
    I think much of what people know about Fr.Leonard Feeney comes from the secular media owned by the Jewish Left. They assume this to be the teachings of the Catholic Church.
    For instance we know the texts of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and we can read the texts on the popes statements on this issue. According to one ‘media approved view ‘ the popes and the Councils were excommunciated for holding the same teaching as Fr.Leonard Feeney on extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
    Then the media including the Catholic apologist Fr.William Most says those who are saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are exceptions to the dogma? This would mean that we know visible cases on earth of persons saved with the baptism of desire who are exceptions to the dogma ? Does the Church teach this ?No.
    However this is the general misinformation floating around.

    Now the Church has long before Fr. Feeney and his decision that he knew who was going to be excluded from heaven, does fly in the face of any number of Magesterial teachings, and approved Catholic practices.
    Lionel:
    Fr.Leonard Feeney ‘knew who was going to be excluded from heaven’ based on the dogma and magisterial teachings.
    What would you say is the extreme position of extra ecclesiam nulla salus permitted of Catholics ?
    Your question about the strict and narrow interpretation of EENS, is a bit dishonest. While it is permitted to hold the position, one cannot until the Church has officially pronounced on the issue proclaim it dogmatic, to the exclusion of the rest of the Catholic teaching on what other provisions the Church allows to be believed.
    Lionel:
    I affirmed the dogma in an earlier post. I have not come to this issue from any of Fr.Leonard Feeney’s communities though I sympathise with them. I donot know if you would consider my view extreme. I agree with Fr.Leonard Feeney in saying every one needs to enter the Church with no salvation and there is no baptism of desire etc that we know of and which can be an exception to the dogma.
    The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus has not been retracted by the Catholic Church. There is no document which makes this claim. So it is still dogmatic.
    May be you mean the Church has not issued a dogmatic statement on the baptism of desire etc.i.e if it is a defacto exception to the dogma.

    You see I don’t hold to the Feeneyite postion, I admit that it is possible because the Church has not (regardless of what the Feeneyites claim) made a final dogmatic pronouncement. In addition either explicit or implicit holding that the Feeneyite position is the de-facto dogmatic position, is by at least implication, and from some Feeneyites explicit that Pope St. Pius X, Venerable Pope Pius IX and others are herectical for explaining and expounding on the teachings of the Church related to this issue, but including the possiblity of non-catholics coming to salvation. By doing so you are ignoring entire statements of the Church which allow us to accept as pious opinion that God has provided for the salvation of the Pagan and the non-catholic under the provisions discussed earlier.
    Lionel:
    We agree that a non Catholic can be saved.
    I interpret the magisterial documents as saying that de facto in reality every one needs to enter the Church as St.Thomas Aquinas taught.
    While de jure in principle ‘in certain circumstances’ there could be a pagan given the grace needed for salvation and he could be provided with the means of salvation. St.Thomas Aquinas gave us the example of the man in the forest.
    The difficulty arises if you assume that these pagans who are saved are known to us in particular cases.

    You also wish us to let you eat your cake and have it too. Discounting Fr. Most, and the majority of theologians, as well as Popes as not speaking for the Magesterium or with the Authority of the Magisterium, but demanding that we accept the Slaves, Fr. Feeney, Mrs. (sometimes Sr.) Catherine Goddard Clarke, or your website as the voice of the Magisterium because you say all others are heretics is quite a big role for you to take on.
    Lionel:
    I am only saying that those saved in invincible ignorance are not an exception to the dogma . Fr.William Most assumes they were.
    Also the ordinary means of salvation in the Catholic Church is Catholic Faith and the baptism of water (AG 7,LG 14) it is not invincible ignorance. Fr.Most says that the Native Americans were saved before the missionaries arrived there.
    These are two errors in that post you have quoted.

    Secondly I may not be using the apologetics of any of Fr.Leonard Feeney’s communities.

    As to Mr. Voris, and others who have public postings on the internet, there is a bit of a fine line here. First Mr. Voris who does present himself as have a Bachelors in Sacred Theology, which seems valid, and does many times present very good and newsworthy issues, is like those you dismiss as not being the voice of the Magisterium, is himself not either. I like much of what he presents, but I don’t give him nor am I required to give him the same obedience that I give to the legitimate authority of the Ordinary of a Diocese. If the bishop is a heretic, there are established protocols for investigating such claims, under Canon Law, which he skips over. How this is connected with Abp. Gomez escapes me though.

    Lionel:
    Is Archbishop Gomez willing to say that Judaism is not a path to salvation and that Jews need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell (for salvation) ?
    Will he affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as does Micahel Voris ?

    I can almost see why under the former Ordinary, Roger Cardinal Mahony the Slaves would not seek canonical status in LA, however under Abp Gomez, I see no reason for the Slaves to not present themselves for regularization.
    Lionel:
    Yes I think they can present themselves for regularisation.I hope they will.

    #10272

    Lionel
    Member

    Either we have viewed a different webpage, or you are inventing information from the Sisters of St. Benedict web-site. The only webpage I’ve seen does say,
    Eventually, four other communities of Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary were formed — one each in New Hampshire, Ohio and California, and a second one in Massachusetts. All of these communities are committed to defending the Church’s doctrines and promoting the Faith through publishing and teaching.
    in it’s history section. Nowhere is Los Angeles mentioned, or that these other communities were received with their community back into the Church. If after reviewing the entire website, I may have missed what you are referring to, or if there is another secret site somewhere, please let me know.
    Lionel:
    I am referring to the community in California. They do not have a website and little is known about them. I am glad you know them and it is heartening to know that they are still there inspite of all the media misinformation about Fr. Leonard Feeney.
    I hope they will apply for canonical status and get it.

    As to the letter to Abp. Gomez, well you are free to write him or publish an open letter, moreover since you seem to have taken upon yourself the authority and ability to condemn as a heretic everyone from the Pope to the local dog-catcher, and misquote, revise and misrepresent Catholic teaching to the point of making a mokery of the Church. The ramblings on your blog cannont be taken seriously as the interpretations you extract from offical Church documents are simply not recognizable when compaired to the source documents.
    Lionel:
    Basically I would like to say that the Church has not retracted the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and that dogma is in agreement with Vatican Council II and other magisterial texts.
    Secondly there is no statement in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which says Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for heresy.Also, the Church officially lifted the excommunication for disobedience without him having to recant.
    I provided you the statement of the priest who represented the Church in the lifting of the excommunication. I cited the exact text of the dogma and gave citations from Vatican Council II and other Church documents, finally pointing out that this was the interpretation of the dogma for centuries.

    I did speak to one of the Brothers here today after Mass, and they warned me that your postings are in no way representitive of anything that they would ever endorse. Their argument with the Church is based (in their mind) on sound theology and history. They could not in charity comment on you or the information you have posted.
    Lionel:
    I am glad you spoke to brothers about this subject.
    Perhaps you could ask then, for me, if they know any one in the USA or elsewhere who is saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance ?
    If they answer NO, could you ask them how can being saved with the baptism of desire etc be an exception to the dogma?
    Please note that this is not a theological question. It is an intellectual,philosophical observation.

    The more you post here and after a prefunctory search of your information you have scattered across the web, prompt me to invoke the intercession of St. Dymphna for you. But it would seem that by standing up to your misrepresentation of facts, I will be, if I have not been already added to the list of heretics which in your supreme authority you see fit to promulgate with an authority higher (in your mind) than that of the Holy See.
    Lionel:
    Thank you for your prayers for me.
    The Church’s tecahing is clear. One can judge for oneself when there is disobedience or fidelity.

    also yet to answer the question about the salvation of the souls of Cats and Dogs. A discussion which not only during my seminary formation but in that of most, clerics I’ve spoken with, liberal and traditional has come up. Yes or No, Lionel, what do you pronounce? Otherwise I await something credible, from a credible website, not your blog, which contorts simple statements into something quite different from the original to be posted by yourself.
    Lionel: I have given the answer above.

    #10276

    LARobert
    Participant

    Lionel:

    Further research on your postings all around the web seem to point to one of a few possibilties. First as you live in Italy and post in English and Italian, I’m hoping that some of your inconsistancies and misinformation is related to an incomplete understanding of english. I would hate to think it is an attempt on your part to mislead others.

    [i:3em56vz5]The Los Angeles Slaves, and their connection to the Worster Sisters[/i:3em56vz5]

    In conversation with the Brothers over lunch after Mass on Sunday, it would seem that my suspicions were correct. The Los Angeles group is not currently related to the Worster group. Rather they are connected with the New Hampshire “Monastic Community” The New Hampshire group admits openly that they are not canonically erected, or connected to the Worster group. While they call themselves a Religious Order and wear habits, they admit that they are a non-approved group of laymen. The Slaves in Los Angeles have no intention of submitting to the Local Ordinary for reception and do not wish to become canonically erected as they will have to do what the sisters in Worster did.

    [i:3em56vz5]What the Sisters in Worster had to do[/i:3em56vz5]
    While as I have mentioned previously, it is permitted for one to hold the strict interpretation of EENS, the Sisters like any honest Catholic also had to admit that the strict position is not dogmatic, and that a Catholic may hold BOD and BOB, as well as Invincible Ignorance. The sisters had to agree to this to be able to be regularized and have their houses canonically erected.

    [i:3em56vz5]Proclaiming Someone to be heretical[/i:3em56vz5]
    You continue to stretch the limits of the truth. While it is true that we have the obligation to point out heretical teachings, you have gone beyond that. First you cite things as being heretical that the Church says are not. Secondly and most importantly neither you nor I have the authority to act as judge and to proclaim someone a heretic whom the Church has not, most of all to act as judge of the Pope, and to make a public proclomation of him being a heretic.

    [i:3em56vz5]Faulty Sources[/i:3em56vz5]
    You deny any authority to accepted and approved sources which deny your private opinon as having dogmatic authority. You use sources such as the Diamond Brothers, a couple of 30 year old Sede Vacantists who hold that anyone who accepts any Pope after the reign of Pope Pius XII as being an Anti-Pope, and all who accept them as being non-Catholic. They have also stated that anyone who denies the Papacies of Popes since Pope John XXIII, but denies Fr. Feeney’s dogmatic assertions is a non-Catholic. Sadly that makes you a non-Catholic in their eyes, which means that you are excluded from the Church, and by your standpoint, Salvation. I’ll not drag on the other poorly researched sources on your Blog.

    [i:3em56vz5]Intellectual dishonesty[/i:3em56vz5]
    I’ve never read anywhere that Cardinal Cushing, Pope Pius XII or any other reliable authority in the Catholic Church has claimed what you assert; that an individual who is saved by BOD, BOB, or II is known to anyone except God. You take statements that have no mention of us being able to know or identify such a person, and assert that because we cannot name one person that they don’t exsist. Something not claimed by anyone or included in any argument by anyone but yourself, and a few others who cloud the issue with criteria that nobody else holds to. Hopefully it is just a combination of your faulty english and the poor scholarship of those who your follow.

    All in all the Church allows for both the narrow interpretation of EENS and it allows for the belief in BOD, BOB and II, as long as anyone holding any or all of the views does so within the context of the teaching of the Church, that being that Salvation comes to all who God applies it to by the Cross of Christ, and through the Church. Any Non-Catholic who is saved is saved not through their false religions, (which may contain some of the truth) but by the Graces God dispenses through His Church.

    #10277

    Lionel
    Member

    After all is said and done the questions still remains.
    How can we deny the texts of a defined dogma which does not mention invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire ?

    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.org

    How can we deny that Pope Pius XII in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 refers to the ‘dogma’. What happened to that dogma ? Where is it? Is it still the Magisterium teaching ?

    And

    Do we know any person saved with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance ?
    No one is answering yes.
    And since we do not know any such case how can it be an exception to the dogma ?
    ____________________________________________________

    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
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com … geles.html

    #10278

    Lionel
    Member

    LARoberts:
    What the Sisters in Worster had to do
    While as I have mentioned previously, it is permitted for one to hold the strict interpretation of EENS, the Sisters like any honest Catholic also had to admit that the strict position is not dogmatic, and that a Catholic may hold BOD and BOB, as well as Invincible Ignorance. The sisters had to agree to this to be able to be regularized and have their houses canonically erected.
    Lionel:
    Correct the Sisters of St.Benedict Center, Worcester affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and also affirm the baptism of desire (Council of Trent) and the possibility of non Catholics being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16).
    Since as I have mentioned above we do not know any defacto case of a person saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire so it does not contradict the ‘strict interpretation’ of the dogma. It also does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction.
    They have received canonical status.

    Proclaiming Someone to be heretical
    You continue to stretch the limits of the truth. While it is true that we have the obligation to point out heretical teachings, you have gone beyond that. First you cite things as being heretical that the Church says are not. Secondly and most importantly neither you nor I have the authority to act as judge and to proclaim someone a heretic whom the Church has not, most of all to act as judge of the Pope, and to make a public proclomation of him being a heretic.
    While it is true that we have the obligation to point out heretical teachings,..
    Lionel:
    In the Nicene Creed we pray :”I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin”. We believe that the baptism of water given to adults with Catholic Faith is necessary for salvation.
    Vatican Council II(Ad Gentes 7) all says all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation.
    Dominus Iesus 20 says salvation is open to all however to receive it one needs to enter the Church.
    The dogma quoted above says all need to convert into the church to avoid the fires of Hell.
    So to deny this teaching is a first class heresy.
    If someone assumes that the baptism of desire is known to us and so it is an exception to the dogma then this is a denial of the Nicene Creed. It is saying that all people on earth do not need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation and that there are some defacto exceptions. There are defacto exceptions to the Creedal teaching!
    This is heresy and originated in Boston when the Cardinal-Archbishop said that there was salvation outside the church. The media reported that the church has changed its centuries old teaching and there was no correction from the Archbishop of Boston who suggested that those saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma. Since then this heresy has spread in the Catholic Church.

    Faulty Sources
    You deny any authority to accepted and approved sources which deny your private opinon as having dogmatic authority. You use sources such as the Diamond Brothers, a couple of 30 year old Sede Vacantists who hold that anyone who accepts any Pope after the reign of Pope Pius XII as being an Anti-Pope, and all who accept them as being non-Catholic.
    Lionel:
    The sources I use I quote .I cite references. The Dimond Brothers also make the error of assuming that the baptism of desire is visible and known to us and so would be an exception to the dogma. So they reject the baptism of desire of the Council of Trent though they affirm the dogmatic teaching on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
    I have written quite a few reports on my blog critical of their position.
    However they are correct in saying that it is a sin to reject the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
    They refer to general heresy in the Catholic Church because of the rejection of the dogma however they do not mention that they are in error by denying the baptism of desire , which really is not an exception to the dogma which they defend.

    They have also stated that anyone who denies the Papacies of Popes since Pope John XXIII, but denies Fr. Feeney’s dogmatic assertions is a non-Catholic. Sadly that makes you a non-Catholic in their eyes, which means that you are excluded from the Church, and by your standpoint, Salvation. I’ll not drag on the other poorly researched sources on your Blog.
    Lionel:
    I accept all the papacies since Pope John XIII and before .
    I do not deny Fr.Leonard Feeney’s support of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It is according to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.Fr.Leonard Feeney is in agreement with the statements of the popes and the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.

    See the three defined dogmas above. Where does it mention the baptism of desire ?

    Intellectual dishonesty
    I’ve never read anywhere that Cardinal Cushing, Pope Pius XII or any other reliable authority in the Catholic Church has claimed what you assert; that an individual who is saved by BOD, BOB, or II is known to anyone except God.
    Lionel:
    That statement is based on simple reason.
    I asked you, and through you,I asked the brother with Fr.Leonard Feeney’s community in LA the same question: Do you or your relatives or friends or parish priest or anyone else know any body on earth saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance ?
    No one says ‘yes we do’.
    Then I ask you both:How can Cardinal Cushing or any one else claim that those saved in these ‘exceptional cases’ are a defacto, known, objective exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
    No one answers.

    All in all the Church allows for both the narrow interpretation of EENS and it allows for the belief in BOD, BOB and II, as long as anyone holding any or all of the views does so within the context of the teaching of the Church, that being that Salvation comes to all who God applies it to by the Cross of Christ, and through the Church.
    Lionel:
    Correct salvation comes ‘to all who God applies it to by the Cross of Christ, and through the Church’ and all people on earth, all mankind, needs to enter the Catholic Church with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water to avoid Hell (for salvation).
    So the above statement allows for ‘the belief in BOD, BOB and II’ and also for ‘ the narrow interpretation’

    Any Non-Catholic who is saved is saved not through their false religions, (which may contain some of the truth) but by the Graces God dispenses through His Church.
    Lionel:
    True any non Catholic who is saved is saved not through his false religion but by the Grace God dispenses through His Church and the ordinary means of salvation is Catholic Faith and the baptism of water,in general, all need to convert into the Church. This is the teaching of the Magisterium.

    #10279

    Lionel
    Member

    Wednesday, January 25, 2012
    CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF SAN BERNARDINO CALIFORNIA: WHY DOES THE CHURCH EXPECT PRIESTS, NUNS AND DEACONS TO ASSUME THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS AN EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA OUTSIDE THE CHURCH NO SALVATION?

    Does Theresa D. Montminy, Chancellor, Diocese of San Bernardino as a Catholic affirm the ‘rigorist interpretation’ of the dogma and also the possibility of persons being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire, since these cases are known only to God?

    I have received an e-mail reply from the Catholic Diocese of San Bernardino, California. It’s in response to the post (1) which I sent to a quite a few people working in the diocese. Sister Elaine Ubelhor, OBL. OSB (2) has responded suggesting that my e-mail was not applicable to them but to the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.

    I had already sent it to the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and have received no reply.

    This is a general Catholic issue and applies also to the Diocese of San Bernardino in California.

    The Deacons in San Bernardino know that there is no known case of a person saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance. Since we do not know any explicit case, Deacon Ed Clark, Director, Permanent Diaconate, San Bernardino,(3) could agree, that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are not exceptions to the dogma.

    For it to be an exception to the centuries old interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus it would have to be known to the deacons, priests and Sr. Elaine Ubelhor at San Bernardino.

    Deacon F. Michael Jelley, Department Director and Vice Chancellor, Ecclesial Services in the diocese would know that neither does Vatican Council II state that we explicitly know these cases or that they are an exception to the dogma. The Church has not retracted this dogma defined three times.

    Maria G. Covarrubias, Director, Catechetical Ministry Office, San Bernardino Catholic Church (5) could clarify if the Catechism of the Catholic Church refers to explicitly known baptism of desire and invincible ignorance.

    Would Sr. Sarah Shrewsbury, Director of the Vocations Office in the diocese of San Bernardino (6) expect candidates with a religious vocation to say there are visible cases of baptism of desire and it is possible to know non Catholics in the present time saved in invincible ignorance or with a good conscience?

    Does Theresa D. Montminy, Chancellor, Diocese of San Bernardino (7) as a Catholic affirm the ‘rigorist interpretation’ of the dogma and also the possibility of persons being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire, since these cases are known only to God?

    Would a community of Fr. Leonard Feeney like the one in Los Angeles, who affirm the centuries old interpretation of the dogma, that of the saints and Church Fathers, and who also accept the baptism of desire in principle, be accepted in San Bernardino by Bishop Gerald R. Barnes?
    -Lionel Andrades

    1.

    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?
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com … rnnia.html

    2.

    Dear Mr. Andrades,

    Your email has reached the Diocese of San Bernardino which is a separate entity from the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Please forward your email to the Archdiocese of Los Angeles at info@la-archdiocese.org.

    Thank you!

    Elaine Ubelhor, Obl.OSB
    Administrative Assistant
    Diocese of San Bernardino
    Communications Department
    Office of Information Services
    Ph: 909-475-5415
    Fax: 909-475-5357
    eubelhor@sbdiocese.org

    3.

    Deacon Ed Clark, Director
    e-mail: eclark@sbdiocese.org
    909-475-5162 909-475-5162

    4.

    Deacon F. Michael Jelley, Department Director
    e-mail: mjelley@sbdiocese.org
    (909) 475-5119 (909) 475-5119

    5.

    Maria G. Covarrubias, Director
    (909) 475-5452 (909) 475-5452
    Cell Phone: (909) 266-6185 (909) 266-6185
    e-mail: mcovarrubias@sbdiocese.org

    6.
    Sr. Sarah Shrewsbury, Director
    sshrewsbury@sbdiocese.org
    (909) 783-1305 (909) 783-1305

    7.

    Theresa D. Montminy, Chancellor
    email: officeofthechancellor@sbdiocese.org
    909-475-5100 909-475-5100

Viewing 19 posts - 1 through 19 (of 19 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.