Wednesday, August 02, 2006

No Salvation Outside the Church

The excellent Diogenes has this post about Mel Gibson and the anti-Catholic Boston Globe. It's just too good to miss.

49 comments:

qlinger said...

It;s funny: pre-WWII the general theme was " One Jew is no different than another Jew". Now that seems to be applied to catholics. If one Catholic is anti-semite than they all must be.

Peter F. said...

The news article's post to the Cathechism fails to elaborate on the full meaning of those paragraphs.

See, for example,
"What about those outside the Church who belong to other Christian faiths or world religions? I do not have enough space here to give an adequate answer to this question. I strongly recommend studying the Catechism's coverage of this matter in nos. 836-845. The opening statement is instructive: "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by grace to salvation" (no. 836).

Members of other Christian churches who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are in a certain, though imperfect, union with the Catholic Church. With the Orthodox churches, this union is so close that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Eucharist.

The Church maintains a special relationship with the Jewish people. As the People of God in the New Covenant, the Church has a deep link with the Jewish people, who were the first to hear God's Word. "Unlike other non-Christian religions, the Jewish faith is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant."

Regarding the Messiah, Jews and Catholics have similar goals about the future. Catholics await the return of the Messiah, who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God. Jews await the coming of a messiah whose features remain hidden until the end of time. Their expectation, therefore, is accompanied by the mystery of their not knowing or misunderstanding Jesus Christ when He comes again."
Quoted from Father McBride Catholic World Heritage

M. Alexander said...

Dear Peter,
Members of other Christian churches may be in a certain "union" with the Catholic Church but is it salvific? I'm afraid not.

And are you saying that Jews are justified in rejecting the Messiah because somehow Our Lord did not make his case adequately when He was here on earth? I will not be their judge and I pray for them but they are called to the True Faith like we all are.

Anonymous said...

"And are you saying that Jews are justified in rejecting the Messiah because somehow Our Lord did not make his case adequately when He was here on earth? "

According to the quote in the Catechism, the interpretation is that they have not rejected the Messiah --- in fact, they believe in the coming of the Messiah and are awaiting his arrive. But, as the quote posted by peter states " Their expectation, therefore, is accompanied by the mystery of their not knowing or misunderstanding Jesus Christ when He comes again." Thus, due to this ignorance, through no fault of their own (Catechism 836-845), they might still be saved due to God's grace, even though they are Jewish, not Catholic.

No one can suddenly believe in Jesus or even decide to join the Catholic church - Everyone who does so needs God's grace. Those who do not yet belive that Jesus was the Messiah have not received God's grace to believe so.

Jessica said...

A love and reverence of Sacred Scripture which might be described as devotion, leads our brethren to a constant meditative study of the sacred text. For the Gospel "is the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith, to the Jew first and then to the Greek".
Rom. 1, 16

Anonymous said...

Catholic Answers has a good discussion of this and has several quotes from the early church fathers.

Here is a short quote. Please read the article for the whole story.
"The following quotations from the Church Fathers give the straight story. They show that the early Church held the same position on this as the contemporary Church does—that is, while it is normatively necessary to be a Catholic to be saved (see CCC 846; Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 14), there are exceptions, and it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church (CCC 847).

Notice that the same Fathers who declare the normative necessity of being Catholic also declare the possibility of salvation for some who are not Catholics."
http://www.catholic.com/library/Salvation_Outside_the_Church.asp

Anonymous said...

The Gibson incident has really opened up discussion about this topic all over the web.
Father Roderick talked about the salvation question on his current Daily Breakfast podcast (www.sqpn.com).

He includes a link to the Cathechism:
"839
"Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways."325

The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,326 "the first to hear the Word of God."327 The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ";328 "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."329

840
And when one considers the future, God's People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.
"

M. Alexander said...

Jessica,
Your quote merely states the availability of salvation. It is not automatic for the Jew and the Greek. Remember to take these quotes in context. At the time it was written Salvation through the Church was offered to Jews and Greeks (the chosen people and the gentiles). This doesn't mean that everyone is saved. That is the heresy of universalism as a dear reader pointed out to me recently.

M. Alexander said...

Dear Anonymous,
Your link doesn't work. Could you repost it?
thanks

M. Alexander said...

Dear Anonymous,
While it is sometimes helpful to refer to the Cathecism I'm sure you know that it is not infallible.

You wrote:
The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ";328 "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."329

Those gifts to the Jewish people do not "guarantee" or replace their call to conversion but only make it more compelling that they are obligated to respond to the invitation to the True Faith. For they were preached to first, in the Old Testament and the New. Our Lord fulfilled ALL their prophecies and yet somehow they did not accept them. So even the dogs eat the crumbs from their master's table.

Anonymous said...

"Your quote merely states the availability of salvation. It is not automatic for the Jew and the Greek."

Obvioiusly not. But is that surprising/ Salvation is not automatic for Catholics either!

" Our Lord fulfilled ALL their prophecies and yet somehow they did not accept them."

But I see that as part of God's mystery. They _are_ his chosen people (and His covenant with him still exists). yet many have not yet realized that Jesus is the Messiah they are waiting for.
Why has God not yet given them the grace to believe this? That is a very interesting question! Who knows, that might be part of God's divine plan.

Anonymous said...

http://www.catholic.com/library/Salvation_Outside_the_Church.asp


If this doesn't work, go to
http://www.catholic.com/library/

Then chose Salvation from the library menu on the left side.

Contrary to the quotes you posted on your recent post, this page also includes quotes that speak to the availability of salvation to all humans.

M. Alexander said...

According to Sandro Magister from www.chiesa.espressnline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=46890&eng=y

reported that Pope Benedict XVI made an appeal for the conversion of the Jews. The relevant quote:

"By their mere existence, the twelve-called from different backgrounds- have become a summons to all Israel to conversion and to allow themselves to be reunited in a new covenant, full and perfect accomplishment of he old."

Why would the Holy Father call for the conversion of the Jews when it is all so unnecessary?

Anonymous said...

"847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:


Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation."

Faithful Jews clearly seek God with a sincere heart. Many pray more often and are more devoted to God than many luke-warm Catholics.
We should pray for their conversion, but it is only God who can give them the grace to believe, and he alone has the power to provide salvation to people of any religion.

I visited the site that anonymous (the other anonymous) posted and it clearly states "The Fathers likewise affirm the possibility of salvation for those who lived before Christ and who were not part of Israel, the Old Testament People of God. " If you read through the quotes, you can see that they did not preclude the availability of salvation to Jews.

The quote from the Cathecism included a quote from the Gospel itself. Surely, you believe the Gospel even though the Cathechism is not infallible.

Les said...

Ignatius of Antioch


"Be not deceived, my brethren: If anyone follows a maker of schism [i.e., is a schismatic], he does not inherit the kingdom of God; if anyone walks in strange doctrine [i.e., is a heretic], he has no part in the passion [of Christ].

Hmmmm. Wonder if the excommunicate SSPX bishops have read this??

M. Alexander said...

Anonymous wrote:

"Why has God not yet given them the grace to believe this?"

Do not imagine that God has not fulfilled His promises or is somehow unable to provide the grace needed for conversion. He has granted all men the grace necessary to save their soul. The question is why has man not responded. Do not diminsh God's omnipotent power. God has revealed Himself and it is up to us to accept or reject the salvation He offers through the Catholic Church.

M. Alexander said...

Another Anonymouse wrote:

"Faithful Jews clearly seek God with a sincere heart. Many pray more often and are more devoted to God than many luke-warm Catholics.
We should pray for their conversion, but it is only God who can give them the grace to believe, and he alone has the power to provide salvation to people of any religion."

First of all, how can they be called "faithful Jews" when they have rejected the Messiah? Secondly, how do you know they seek God with a clean heart? Only God can read their hearts. Thirdly, their unwillingness to convert cannot be blamed on God not giving them enough grace. God has provided all the grace needed to us to save our souls. We either accept or reject it. That is free will. God does not damn the Jews and withold his grace. Neither does He grant us the grace and skimp on other people. God's grace is sufficient. God is always there calling us and calling all men to salvation. If people reject God and His Church it is not from some insufficiency on God's part. It is from our own stubborness.

Anonymous said...

"Why would the Holy Father call for the conversion of the Jews when it is all so unnecessary?"

Huh? Who said it was unnecessary? You have misunderstood what I've said.

My point is that it is not a black/white question. People outside the church can be saved. Some people inside the church will not be saved.

That is the issue -- your statement that no one outside the church is false. I will post a message on your new post to show that this is a long held belief. Please check there.

This does not mean that we are not all called to belong to a single Church. We all are, but not everyone has yet been given God's grace to be called to the Catholic church.

Anonymous said...

"how can they be called "faithful Jews" when they have rejected the Messiah? "
They are faithful to God and are awaiting the Messiah. They have misunderstood Jesus (see Father McBride's article) but have NOT rejected God. (YES, I know Jesus IS God,but read the McBride article to see why the Jews inability to see Jesus as the awaited Messiah does not mean that they have rejected God)

"their unwillingness to convert cannot be blamed on God not giving them enough grace. God has provided all the grace needed to us to save our souls."
No, he has not. We need the grace to RECEIVE God and not everyone has received that yet. Some are called later in life (St. Augustine springs to mind)

Anonymous said...

Mary said "God does not damn the Jews "

Exactly! That's my point. They CAN be saved through his grace if he so wills it (even if they are Jews).

If all non-Catholics could NEVER be saved (as you imply in your post), then they would all be damned, but they aren't so ergo everyone has the potential to be saved, even the millions of people who died before Jesus was even born, and for those who, through no fault of their own, died without converting.

M. Alexander said...

I've been getting a lot of anonymous comments on this thread and am puzzled as to why people would be unwilling to identify themselves if they are so sure of their beliefs. As I felt that most of the comments were not helpful I'm not sure if they will be posted.

I wanted to post this quote from a letter:

"In our discussions with the Congregation [for the Doctrine of the Faith] it seems rather clear that proponents of a strict interpretation of the doctrine [EENS] should be given the same latitude for teaching and discussion as those who would hold more liberal views."
~ May 4, 1988 ~
Rev. Lawrence A. Deery, JCL.
Vicar for Canonical Affairs
Judicial Vicar

In summary, the Vatican has approved a strict belief in EENS. Some hold more liberal interpretations and like to theorize about who may be saved. Which is better to theorize that some, all, many will be saved or work to evangelize and win converts? Clearly that is our obligation and the only reason this issue matter.

Petrus said...

Mary:

In order to distinguish the many anonymouses, then perhaps you could offer this rule: Those who wish to post anonymously must see if there are other anonymouses replying to the same post, and then number themselves, anonymous 1, anonymous 2...

Frankly, I've never seen so many anonymouses in my life, except for in a book of quotes.

Lee said...

I was taught that the only way those who have not been baptized by water (which I think is the main issue here) is by baptism by desire.
BUT! Baptism by desire is SO misunderstood today.
It is NOT 'just doing your best and trying to be as good a person you can be as God moves you'.
It is a deliberate, SPECIFIC, fully conscious desire for Baptism by water particularly.
God may grant this desire to those who are in (TRUE) invincible ignorance. For such is the desire of our loving Father that all be saved.
But if someone IS saved who is in another religion, it is NOT because of that religion, but rather IN SPITE of it.
Get it?

Lisa said...

"the Vatican has approved a strict belief in EENS. Some hold more liberal interpretations and like to theorize about who may be saved. Which is better to theorize that some, all, many will be saved or work to evangelize and win converts? "

Your quote is from1988 and yet
you reject the statement about this issue in the current Catechism yet the Catechism is the official (current) doctorine of the church and has been approved by the Vatican.
The statement in the Catetchism has footnotes to many of the early church fathers and church writings.
I can't understand why you reject the Catechism and adhere to other miscellaneous statement. You point out that the CCC is not infallible. True. But it contains THE teachings of the Catholic Church. Plus, if the CCC is not infallible, neither are any of the quotes that you provide.
I prefer to adhere to the official teachings of the church, and it is not as you imply just the random thoughts of a few people with liberal interpretations. On the contrary, the belife that salvation outside the Church IS possible is the official teaching of the Church today. The Catechism just provides a summary of this point, but you can follow the footnotes and references to work through the issue yourself.

We always condeme liberal Catholics for picking and choosing from what the Church has to offer, we have to be careful not to do the same (e.g, I like what the CCC says in Part 2, but I don't like Part 3, so I'll just ignore it).

I note that other commenters have posted links to essays that discuss this issue in a logical and reasonable manner. they are worth reading. I have also a few other articles on the issue, but won't post them here because this post is already getting too long.

Scott Purdon said...

Mary
You are fairly free with your quotes. That letter had nothing to do with the issue of salvation! It was about regularization of the sisters of St. Ann's House!

"Ten years after the passing of Fr. Feeney, the 14 sisters of St. Ann’s House were “regularized” (the word had replaced “reconciled”). That was in February, 1988. Soon after, a member of Bro. Francis’ community in Richmond, N.H., Mr. Douglas Bersaw, wrote to Bernard Cardinal Law, Archbishop of Boston, about the regularization. Rev. John B. McCormack, Secretary for Ministerial Personnel for the Archdiocese of Boston, answered Mr. Bersaw’s letter on behalf of Cardinal Law. When Mother Teresa of St. Ann’s House learned of Fr. McCormack’s answer, she communicated with Fr. Lawrence A. Deery, Vicar for Canonical Affairs and Judicial Vicar of the Diocese of Worcester. Fr. Deery thereupon wrote a letter to Fr. McCormack. We have earlier quoted a portion of the letter. Here it is in its entirety (it is dated May 4, 1988).


“I write to clarify some aspects of the regularization which took place at St. Ann’s House in Still River this past February.

“Mother Teresa, Superior of the community, has expressed concern about your letter of 7 March 1988 to Mr. Douglas Bersaw who had asked Cardinal Law for a clarification of the Church’s teaching on the doctrine extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It is Mother Teresa’s feeling that your letter implied a ‘walking away’ from Father Feeney’s teachings on their part.

“Several clarifications might prove helpful:

“1) The Sisters were asked to ‘understand’ the letter of the then Holy Office dated 8 August 1949. They were not asked to ‘accept’ its contents.

“2) The Sisters were asked to make a Profession of Faith. Nothing else was required.

“It would seem that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith holds the doctrine to have been defined and consequently definitive. It is its theological interpretation and speculation which they see as problematical.


“In our discussions with the Congregation it seemed rather clear that proponents of a strict interpretation of the doctrine should be given the same latitude for teaching and discussion as those who would hold more liberal views.


“Summarily, Mother Teresa and her community do a great deal more than keep the memory of Father Feeney. They now actively proclaim his teachings as they did before the regularization.

“I do hope this information helps to clarify the status of these Sisters and their apostolate.”

Bev Dalton said...

"I've been getting a lot of anonymous comments on this thread and am puzzled as to why people would be unwilling to identify themselves if they are so sure of their beliefs. As I felt that most of the comments were not helpful I'm not sure if they will be posted."

I've posted a few quotes under anonymous (I was in a rush). My comments just contained quotes from the Early Church fathers and didn't contain anything objectionable. Why didn't you allow them?

I'm sure of my beliefs.

M. Alexander said...

Thank you for quoting the whole letter but as you know the issue is salvation.

Lesley said...

Interpreting the Church's standing on this issue to mean ONLY explicit adherents of the Roman Catholic Church can be saved is Feeneyism.
Feeney as we all know does NOT speak on behalf of the Church.

"On account of disobedience, the Jesuit order dismissed Feeney in 1949, and on 4 February 1953 the Holy Office (now the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) declared him excommunicated "on account of grave disobedience to Church Authority, being unmoved by repeated warnings". "

Lesley said...

forgot a source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_Nulla_Salus

M. Alexander said...

Lesley,
You pointed out that Fr. Feeney was excommunicated. Please note that Fr. was excommunicated for "disobedience" and not for heresy. It would have been more honest if you had included the fact that the censures were lifted and Fr. was reconciled with the Church without being asked to retract or condemn anything that he believed or taught. If Fr. Feeney was a heretic he would have to retract his errors. This did not happen. Furthermore, the order that Fr. Feeney founded is in union with the Church and has been regularized. They continue the work of Fr. Feeney. You may draw your own conclusions about these facts. Furthermore, it is hard to be too upset that it was the Jesuits who dismissed Fr. Feeney.

any mouse 10000x10 said...

" it is hard to be too upset that it was the Jesuits who dismissed Fr. Feeney"

Watch it! What are you implying about the Jesuits??

M. Alexander said...

I don't believe I meant to imply anything but merely state it outright. The Jesuits are currently a mess. Of course there are a few prominent exceptions like the late Fr. Hardon, but ask yourself why are they exceptions?

SuSu said...

"The Jesuits are currently a mess."
Maybe yes, maybe no. Depends on which country you're looking at.
You have to look at them historically, not just a few select ones today.
The Vatican has an excellent astonomer who is a Jesuit and he does a wonderful job representing the Church.

So don't stereotype an entire religious group! After all, the SSPX certainly has it share of wackos but you wouldn't condemn the whole group based on those folks, would you?

Hilary said...

"I don't believe I meant to imply anything but merely state it outright."

I didn't realize that you were THE Mary, Blessed Mother.
You sure are quick to point fingers and dismiss an entire group based on a few individuals. Must be nice to be without sin.

M. Alexander said...

No, that's definitely a different Mary.

When I think of the Jesuits (currently) I think of Fr. Drinan (proabortion), Fr. Curran (proabortion), Fr. McBrien (proabortion) and Fr. Reese, former editor of America. Also I've had relatives who were Jesuits. Let me just say that they did not fare well.

hilary said...

"When I think of the Jesuits (currently) I think of Fr. Drinan (proabortion), Fr. Curran (proabortion), Fr. McBrien (proabortion) and Fr. Reese, former editor of America. Also I've had relatives who were Jesuits. Let me just say that they did not fare well."

That's too bad to have a few taint the whole group.
For example, just because a few Americans are loud obnoxious tourists (experiences THAT first hand one sad trip in London), I wouldn't believe that the whole lot is bad.

There are lots of good Jesuits, too. Including the ones who set up the pray as you go podcast and the scientists at the Vatican especially Guy Consolmagno.
You can hear a bit about him at:
http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/archives/05-06/apr15.html

A friend heard him in person and said he was an excellent speaker and excellent representative of the Catholic Church.

Philosophia said...

Fr. Drinan (proabortion), Fr. Curran (proabortion), Fr. McBrien (proabortion) and Fr. Reese, former editor of America

All AMERICANS. So, you can limit your bad opinion to American Jesuits not Jesuits in general. Or don't generalize to all ... just view these people as BAD Jesuits not as typical Jesuits.

M. Alexander said...

I'm glad to hear that this is a uniquely American experience. I am also thinking of the Jesuits sale of the Retreat center and land at the Shrine of the North American Martyrs in Auriesville to a Chinese new age healing center. Rumor has it that the whole thing will be sold in 10 years.

Let's hope the Holy Father can exert some guidance and discipline.

Anonymous said...

i am a catholic. and i belive in salvation outside of the church. jesus did not just come to save the jews the first time. the second time he will not come to just save the catholics. he will come to save everyone, just as he did the first time.

Catholic Mission said...

Father Leonard Feeney was not excommunicated for heresy: No Tridentine Rite Mass without Outside the Church There is No Salvation (Extra ecclesiam nulla salus)

If there is an objection that Fr. Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for affirming extra ecclesiam nulla salus, this is a falsehood.

The 'dogma' referred to in the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston 1949 indicates that all Jews in Boston need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell.

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…-Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston
Here is the text of the dogma.

“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. Ex cathedra – from the website Catholicism.org

CONTINUED

Catholic Mission said...

CONTINUED

So the Letter of the Holy Office referring to the 'dogma' supported Fr. Leonard Feeney on doctrine. The dogma (Cantate Domino) indicates all Jews in Boston need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell. This was exactly what Fr. Leonard Feeney taught.

There is no Church document which says that Fr. Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for heresy. There is no also no Church document which says that the Church has retracted extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The Church still upholds the dogma.

The diocese of Manchester, USA recently appointed a chaplain for the St. Benedict Centre, Richmond, New Hampshire and approved their chapel. The diocese of Worcester has granted canonical status to the St. Benedict’s Abbey monks and the Sisters of St. Benedict Center and the community in Still River, Massachusetts, St. Anns House. The Abbey was recognized as early as 1988 with the approval of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

All these communities inspired by Fr. Leonard Feeney uphold the ex cathedra dogma outside the church there is no salvation which is in accord with Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church 845, 846, Dominus Iesus 20 and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 issued during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII. They hold what the secular media calls 'the rigorist interpretation' of the dogma.

Their recognition by the diocese was also formally approved by Ecclesia Dei, Vatican since they use the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, permitted by the moto proprio Summorum Pontificium.The Tridentine Rite Mass, the Mass of the popes and saints.

Pius XII was saying in the Letter of the Holy Office all Jews in Boston need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water to avoid Hell. (1) The Letter (Haec Suprema) issued by Cardinal Ottaviani supported Fr. Feeney on doctrine and criticized him for being disobedient to the Archbishop of Boston, whom it was believed then, was faithful to the Church on doctrine. The first part of the Letter referred to doctrine/dogma and the second part to discipline/disobedience.

There is no Magisterial document which states that Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for heresy. The Letter of the Holy Office included in the Denzinger–Enchiridion refers to only ‘disobedience’. The Letter really supported Fr. Leonard Feeney with ‘the dogma’ it needs to be repeated. So it is factually incorrect to say the priest was excommunicated for heresy

There is no explicit or implicit Baptism of Desire that we know of and it is only explicit for God. The ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus clearly says everyone must be a VISIBLE; FORMAL member of the Catholic Church to go to Heaven and avoid Hell and there are no exceptions. The Jewish Left media created the phrase Boston Heresy Case and refer to a rigorist and non rigorist interpretation, as if there can be two interpretations of an infallible teaching . The rigorist interpretation is in accord with the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (845,846)

When Fr. Leonard Feeney and his communities say there is no baptism of desire they mean that there is no baptism of desire defacto or de jure (in principle) that we can know of. None of us knows any case of a person saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance.

The communities of Fr. Leonard Feeney in the USA accept the baptism of desire as a concept; as a possibility, in ‘certain circumstances’ (Letter of the Holy Office 1949). They have also provided a definition of the baptism of desire with its conditions on their website (Catholicism.org).

So it is false for a priest offering the Tridentine Rite Mass to reject the dogma Cantate Domino as it was known for centuries, claiming, that Fr. Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for affirming this very dogma.

There can be no Tridentine Rite Mass without extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

-Lionel Andrades
E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com

Catholic Mission said...

Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Its a mortal sin to deny the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It is a sacrilege to receive the Eucharist in this condition- Fr. Gabrielle, priest of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate

Novus Ordo priest affirms rigorist interpretation of dogma and also Vatican Council II
An Italian priest who offered the Novus Ordo Mass in Italian today morning at the Salus Populi Romani chapel in the Basilica of St. Mary Majors, Rome, said it was a mortal sin to deny an ex cathedra dogma like the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady or extra ecclesiam nulla salus.


Fr. Gabrielle said it was a sacrilege to receive the Eucharist in this condition without first going for Confession.


He was speaking with me in the sacristy after Mass and will be here for a few months. I told him I write on this subject on my blog.


The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the church there is no salvation) says everyone with no exception needs to be a formal member of the Catholic Church for salvation. He agreed this was the teaching of the dogma and of the Catholic Church. Every non Catholic needs to enter the Church for salvation." If there is no baptism there is no salvation ",said Fr. Gabrielle.It needs to be mentioned that Catholics only give the baptism of water to adults with Catholic Faith (Ad Gentes 7).


Vatican Council II also says Fr. Gabrielle said that there can be those saved through Jesus and the Church and who may not be members of the Church. It needs to be clarified here that only God knows which non Catholics are saved through Jesus and the Church. So this does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.


Fr. Gabrielle had earlier during the homily spoken about St. Maria Goretti. He also mentioned in the homily that fornicators, or someone who committed a sin of impurity, should not receive the Eucharist, without going for Confession otherwise it would be a sacrilege.


So I asked him about extra ecclesiam nulla salus.He said presently there was a lot of confusion on this issue.He emphasized the necessity of the Church for the salvation of all people.-Lionel Andrades

CONTINUED
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/07/its-mortal-sin-to-deny-dogma-extra.html#links

Catholic Mission said...

CONTINUED
VATICAN COUNCIL II AFFIRMS THE DOGMA




Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door.-Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II (Note: All need the baptism of water for salvation and Catholics only give baptism to adults with Catholic Faith. So Ad Gentes 7 is saying that all people need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation.)




CATECHISM AFFIRMS DOGMA
"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.-Catechism of the Catholic Church 846 (Note : ‘which men through Baptism as through a door’ was a term used by the Church Fathers for the rigorist interpretation of outside the church there is no salvation).


CCC 845.To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son's Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is "the world reconciled." She is that bark which "in the full sail of the Lord's cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world." According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah's ark, which alone saves from the flood.-Catechism of the Catholic Church n.845 Catechism of the Catholic Church


DOMINUS IESUS AND THE DOGMA


This doctrine must not be set against the universal salvific will of God (cf. 1 Tim 2:4); “it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation”.-Dominus Iesus 20 (Note: Salvation is open for all however to receive this salvation they need to enter the Church).
___________________________________

CONTINUED

Catholic Mission said...

CONTINUED
VATICAN COUNCIL II SAYS OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION


Vatican Council II says outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.


The Catholic Church teaches after Vatican Council II (1965) that all people need to enter the Catholic Church to go to Heaven (Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II).


Catholic Faith with the Baptism of water is the normal, ordinary way of salvation for all people (Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II).The Catholic Church is the ordinary way of salvation for all people (Lumen Gentium 14).Non Catholics however can be saved through the extraordinary means of salvation (Lumen Gentium 16).Only God knows who are the non-Catholics saved through the extraordinary means of salvation; the exceptions. We do not know who the exceptions are. We cannot judge. Jesus, the Church, Scripture and Vatican Council II indicate that the priority is Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water for all people.


So everyone needs to enter the Catholic Church which is the like the only Ark of Noah that saves in the Flood (CCC).Non Catholic religions have good things in them. However they are not paths to salvation. All salvation comes through Jesus and His Mystical Body the Church. Those non-Catholics who know the above information and yet do not enter the Church are oriented to Hell (Ad Gentes 7, Lumen Gentium 14).Those non-Catholics participating in inter religious dialogue, are educated. They know. They are oriented to Hell.


Outside the Church there is no salvation. Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water are needed for all people. This is Vatican Council II.


No where in Nostra Aetate, Vatican Council II is it said that non Catholic religions are paths to salvation.


Vatican Council II is in harmony with John 3:5, the Church Fathers, Council of Florence, Evangelii Nuntiandi, Redemptoris Missio, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Dominus Iesus, Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Notification on Fr. Jacques Dupuis etc.


Don’t let people fool you about Vatican Council II. Check the details and affirm the Faith which does not change.


Jesus called the Catholic Church “…my church…” He told St. Peter that it would prevail against Satan and be there for all time. -Lionel Andrades
CONTINUED
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/07/its-mortal-sin-to-deny-dogma-extra.html#links

Catholic Mission said...

Peter,
We do not know who among other Christians are in imperfect or perfect union with the Church.Only God can judge. So it does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which says every one must be a formal member of the Church to avoid Hell.
All implicit forms of salvation i.e the baptism of desire, a good conscience, imperfect communion, being saved in invinicble ignorance or the Word of God are known only to God. So they do not contradict Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441 on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
It means there is nothing said in the Catechism or Vatican Council II which contradicts the dogma which Pope Pius XII called 'the infallible' teaching in the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr.Leonard Feeney (1949).
Ad Gentes 7 instead says all need baptism for salvation. Since Catholics give the baptism of water only to adults one assumes that all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation. This includes Orthodox Christians and Protestants.

Catholic Mission said...

PAULISTS FATHERS’ ORDINATION OF PRIESTS CONSIDERED ‘LICIT’

The Paulists Fathers on their official website teach a theology of religions they also reject the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The priests are allowed by the Vatican to offer Mass in this condition and their ordinations are considered valid and not illicit.

The following is from their website on Ecumenism and Inter religious dialogue.

What are the goals of interreligious dialogue?
The goals of the ecumenical movement and interfaith dialogue are different. The goal of interfaith dialogue is not unity in faith and worship, but mutual understanding and respect, and mutual enrichment enabling us all to respond more fully to God's call. It includes collaboration wherever possible in response to the societal problems we commonly face. For this reason, the purpose of theological dialogue will not be to prove that one side is right and the other is wrong, but rather to explore respective positions in order to understand them better. When this is done, many prejudices, built on half-truths, will fall by the wayside.

What are the theological points of reference for interreligious dialogue?

The theological bases for approaching followers of other religions with respect and esteem are found dispersed throughout the various documents of the Second Vatican Council. For example:

God wills the salvation of all.

The whole human race is united in its origin and destiny.
God is active in the hearts of human beings, drawing them to God's self.

God is active in the different religious rites which give corporate expression to the human response to God.

Human beings have been created with free will and must respond freely to God according to the dictates of their conscience, while always searching for the truth.

These teachings form the basis for interfaith dialogue founded on mutual respect, binding trust, and honest friendship between the adherents of different religious traditions.

Note: God wills the salvation of all, true, but to receive this salvation they need to enter the Church .(Dominus Iesus 20).

The whole human race is united in its origin and destiny. False. Non Catholics are oriented to Hell without Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water.(Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II, Catechism of the Catholic Church 845,846.
Not all their rites are good. They have deficiences, error and supersition and their members are in a deficient situation as compared to the Catholic Church which has the 'fullness of truth').

CONTINUED

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/07/paulists-fathers-ordination-of-priests.html

Terri O'Rorke said...

The Diocese of Manchester NH appointed a priest (NOT A CHAPLAIN)to the SBC in Richmond NH in the fall of 2010. Also, the Bishop DID NOT approve of the worship space
SBC as a "chapel." This response was in an email to one of the SBC abutters from Diane Quinlan of the Bishop's Office. For proof of that please visit the website:
https://sites.google.com/site/sbctimeline/
Scroll down to the year 2010 for this fully documented information.

Terri O'Rorke said...

For a much more in depth understanding of what happened to the town of Richmond, NH, a new book has been recently released. It is titled "Deliver Us. . .a religious cult vs. Richmond, NH. This well researched, well documented book tells the true story of how the splintered SBC, after losing their court case in Mass., came to NH. The book chronicles their less than truthful means of building their current compound, their expansion plans & resultant bullying of townspeople, the lawsuit against the town & board members & much, much more!!This fact filled but fast reading book retails for $14.95 with all proceeds benefitting the Richmond, NH Historical Society. To order a copy please email richmondhistory@yahoo.com
Thank you.

Jillian said...

And Terri O'Rourke just happens to spend far too much of her precious time worrying about SBC. :(

If the self-published book is indeed factual, why was no one willing to put their name to it? Liars always need to hide behind anonymity.

Fact: the priest at SBC was approved by the Bishop.
Fact: the new worship space is approved.
Fact: other priests from the Diocese do come and say Mass for the community with permission.

Most of the townspeople I've met in Richmond, NH are just fine with the SBC.