Whatever be ones opinion on Fr. Leonard Feeney we can all agree that there is no visible baptism of desire and implicit baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma outside the church there is no salvation.

People have different opinions about Fr. Leonard Feeney and they usually repeat what others have said or written about him. They are unable to provide any text written by him which is heretical.

The excommunication was for disobedience to Church authority. He refused to go to Rome when called, he refused to accept a transfer and he called the Archbishop Cardinal Richard Cushing a heretic. It was unbelievable at that time that a cardinal could teach heresy. Today, we have the example of Cardinal Walter Kaspar, Cardinal Carlo Martini S.J etc.

The Archbishop believed those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire were exceptions to the dogma and to Fr. Leonard Feeney’s traditional interpretation. For him the baptism of desire would be visible for it to be an exception to the dogma. This is the rejection of the dogma which says all need to convert into the Church for salvation. The Archbishop rejected the dogma, with his exceptions, which Pope Pius XII called the ‘infallible statement’ in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. The Letter was addressed to the Archbishop and not Fr.Leonard Feeney. The pope was telling the Archbishop that all non Catholics in Boston need to convert into the Catholic Church to avoid the fires of Hell. The ‘dogma’ mentioned in the Letter did not mention any exceptions like the baptism of desire. This was an issue raised by Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits in Boston and which was then inserted in Vatican Council II . The Archbishop did not know the Faith or did not want to profess it.

The Church has accepted the baptism of desire (Council of Trent etc) but to claim that it is not implicit but explicit and is an exception to the dogma is heresy.

Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center were disobedient as the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 mentions. They were disobedient but not heretical.

De facto everyone needs to enter the Church, as taught by the dogma. De jure a person can be saved with implicit baptism of desire and it would be known only to God. The baptism of water and teaching someone the Catholic Faith is explicit. The baptism of desire is never explicitly known to us.

So we accept the baptism of desire (Letter of the Holy Office, Council of Trent) and also the possibility of non Catholics being saved in invincible ignorance (Lumen Gentium 16) however we do not imply that they are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. -Lionel Andrades

It says “…all salvation comes through Christ.” never mentioning the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the need for all people to enter the Church.

Wikipedia says :’For Catholicism, Christ provides the Church with “the fullness of the means of salvation which [the Father] has willed: correct and complete confession of faith, full sacramental life, and ordained ministry in apostolic succession.” Then surprisingly the encyclopedia states:’To Catholic thinking, this does not mean that only Christians can enter heaven, for “By his death (Jesus, the Son of God) has conquered death, and so opened the possibility of salvation to all .”

This is false.We know that the ordinary means of salvation is Catholic Faith and the baptism of water (Ad Gentes 7,Lumen Gentium 14). If there is anyone saved in invincible ingnorance or the baptism of desire it would be known only to God so this is not the ordinary means of salvation nor even an issue. This is an error on Wikipedia. If they could make such a fundamental error here one does not know if there are similar errors on information provided on salvation in other religions.

Wikipedia states: ‘Thus, the Catholic Church clearly teaches that, although Christ is the Saviour of the human race, it is not necessary to know Him personally to be saved.’False. In general, it is necessary to know Jesus personally, to believe in Him and to be a member of the Catholic Church to be saved.

Wikipedia continues: ‘This is because Catholicism believes that the salvation, and reconciliation, of humanity took place when Christ died and rose again, and that this salvation applies to all people whether or not they realise this fact.’ This is false. Salvation is open to all people however to receive it they need to enter the Catholic Church .(Dominus Iesus 20).

Wikipedia states: ‘This in no way means that Catholicism believes that all religions are equal..’.The Church teaches not only that all religions are not equal but that other religions are not paths to salvation. Wikipedia continues,’but merely that not everyone knows of Christ and that even those who do may have had the Gospel presented in such manner as to have turned them away (e.g. by missionaries who were poor examples of the Christian life).’

We do not know of any case on earth of someone saved who has not heard the Gospel preached to them, so why does Wikipedia make this an issue.?

In its Declaration on Religious Freedom, Dignitatis humanae, the same Vatican II also stated:

”This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

Catholics allow others their right to religious freedom and also ask for the right to affirm their own faith, the Catholic Faith.They also ask that others not represent the Catholic Faith falsely as in the case of Wikipedia. Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 7) says all people need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation (to avoid Hell).The followers of other religions are oriented to Hell.Wikipedia also needs to mention this passage in Vatican Council II.
Also those who know about the Jesus and the Church and yet do not enter cannot be saved.(Ad Gentes 7). This would include millions of educated non Catholics including the writers on Wikipedia.This too needs to be mentioned.

Catholics have the right to affirm this teaching and not be forced to accept the politically accepted one, thrust on us via Wikipedia and other media.

Wikipedia says. ‘The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right”

Catholics also need to have their dignity recognized and their religious beliefs correctly reported and not have political propaganda forced on them.

It is reported on Wikipedia that salvation comes from the Jews. This means it needs to be clarified that it comes from the Promised Jewish Messiah, Jesus.So in this sense it comes from the Jews. Catholics are now the new Chosen People of God. The people of the everlasting Covenant.Salvation was won for them, who believe in Jesus and are in the only Church Jesus founded.It was won through Jesus’ Supreme Sacrifice for those who responded and converted into the Church. This Sacrifice is continued in the Holy Mass.
Salvation is available in the Sacraments of the Catholic Church and not defacto in other Christian communities.This is the official teaching of the Catholic magisterium in magisterial texts not quoted by Wikipedia.
-Lionel Andrades
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/12/wikipedias-entry-on-salvation.html

Daphne McLeod’s statement over time to reverberate throughout Catholic Church

The Conference of Catholic Bishops of England and Wales (CCBEW) agree there is no visible baptism of desire, it is learnt, they are not to issue a denial.They are in agreement with the statement of the English school teacher. Daphne McLeod said that there can be those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire and this does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.She was not talking theology but making a simple common sense observation.The English bishops have no clarification to issue on her statement and neither on that of the Southwark Vocation Director Fr.Stephen Langley.It follows that implicit baptism of desire and those saved in invincible ignorance are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

In the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston ,Pope Pius XII referred to ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible teaching’.The dogma indicates all non Catholics need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation (to avoid Hell). The dogma does not mention any exceptions such as the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance.Since they are implicit and not visible to us they cannot be defacto exceptions.

So Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance/good conscience) is not an exception to the dogma.It does not contradict the centuries-old interpretation of outside the church there is no salvation.

In principle (de jure) it is accepted that there can be people saved with the baptism of desire, invincible ignorance, good conscience, imperfect communion with the church, ‘the seeds of the Word’(Vatican Council II). De facto we do not know any such case and so they do not contradict the dogma.They do not contradict the interpretation of the popes, saints and Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston, who was not excommunicated for heresy. The excommunication of this courageous priest, was lifted during his lifetime without him having to recant.He was disobedient to the Archbishop of Boston who suggested that there was an explicitly-known baptism of desire which was an exception to the dogma.

The Archbishop rejected the traditional defacto-dejure analysis of magisterial texts and used an irrational defacto-defacto philosophical model.

In principle (dejure) we can accept that ‘God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments (CCC 1257).’ and ‘ the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament ‘(CCC 1258) can be there. These cases are not explicitly known to us. De facto we do not know any such case on earth.

In principle,dejure we can accept that ‘the Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptized are baptized by their death,’(CCC 1258) in reality only God can judge these cases. They are de facto known only to God.

Catechumens in principle can receive salvation which ‘ they were not able to receive through the sacrament’ if they die before receiving the baptism of water’(CCC 1259). We accept this dejure. De facto we do not know any case so it does not contradict the dogma or Ad Gentes 7 which says all need to enter the Church with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.

In principle, dejure ‘every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved ‘(CCC 1260). De facto the ordinary way of salvation is Catholic Faith with the baptism of water (Ad Gentes 7, Lumen Gentium 14).

In principle we do not exclude from salvation ‘ all united to the Church only by implicit desire’ (Letter of the Holy Office 1949) and ‘reprove…those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion’ i.e every one with no exception needs to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation and there are defacto no exceptions.(Letter of the Holy Office 1949, (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution, , in , n. 1641 ff.; also Pope Pius IX in the encyclical letter, , in , n. 1677).

Nowhere in the Letter of the Holy Office is it said that the baptism of desire is visible and so an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Neither does Vatican Council II or the Catechism of the Catholic Church make this claim.

The Letter is affirming ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible statement’i.e the ‘strict interpretation’ of outside the church there is no salvation. It was defined ex cathedra and so it is ‘infallilble’. The Letter also affirms implicit baptism of desire. If implicit baptism of desire is considered explicit and known to us, then the Letter would contradict itself.This would be an irrational defacto-defacto analysis.

Similarly Lumen Gentium 14 says everyone needs to enter the Church, ‘the necessity of faith and baptism’.Lumen Gentium 15 and 16 refer to those saved implicitly and who are not formal members of the Church. They can be saved of course in principle and are defacto not known to us.Specific cases are known only to God. Since they are not explicitly known to us they do not contradict Lumen Gentium 14.Here we are using the defacto-dejure analysis.

If you considered implicit salvation as explicitly known to us then Lumen Gentium 15-16 would contradict Lumen Gentium 14. This would be the defacto-defacto reasoning.

Fr.Leonard Feeney was saying that every one de facto needs to enter the Church for salvation and in principle we do not know any exceptions of the baptism of water etc.

The English Cardinals and bishops recognize that every one needs to enter the Church for salvation and there are no visible cases of the baptism of desire. So those saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
-Lionel Andrades
December 8, 2011. Feast of the Immaculate Conception.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/12/conference-of-catholic-bishops-of.html

It the Catholic Church (albeit, in a non-infallible way) at the “Vatican Council forever committed the Roman Catholic Church to a belief in the possible salvation of non-Christians…and (has) officially condemn(ed) the teaching of Fr. Leonard Feeney, S.J. in the 1940s in Boston” why are the followers of Father Feeney in full communion with Rome:

http://catholicism.org/our-status-in-the-church.html

Why, also was Father Feeney fully reconciled to the Church in 1972 without being required to recant his “heretical” beliefs? And, why do some of his followers see no irreconcilable conflict between the Second Vatican Council and the already solemn pronouncements of the Church:

http://www.marycoredemptrix.com/CenterReview/3_2005_Vatican2.pdf

Let’s start from the beginning. Let us take the most devout Christian (we can substitute this person for Muslim, Jewish, whatever) who believes in the Bible. He (just for ease of typing) believes in the Garden of Eden, Noah’s Ark, all the rest of it. He meets an Atheist, and between them, through rational argument, the Christian accepts that the Bible is not absolutely true, but is allegorical in nature – a position which many modern Christians take today. He accepts that evolution exists, that the earth is older than he though and so on, but with the overall guiding hand of god. “Ahah!” he says, “You still can’t prove how life began”. So the atheist (who is apparently a scientist now…. ) discusses DNA, life and so on – till we get to this point.
An Atheist cannot prove that god does not exist. He cannot prove that god didn’t create life. He cannot prove that god is not having a bit of laugh with us all, that he occasionally throws in some elements of chance to livens things up.
How much involvement then, does god have with his creations? From your article above, it would seem that your god appears to be a being who oversees a much large picture than we humans imagine. My only argument with Richard Dawkins is that whilst his vision of the world is far richer than many ‘true’ Christians would believe, it still comes down to this : We are specks in this universe. The only thing which separates us from animals is the fact that we are in a position to contemplate our relation to it, which is that we are pretty much unimportant. Global warming, murder, wars, all the rest of it – what we do has basically no effect on the universe as a whole. It’s like that bit in Douglas Adam’s book where the person steps into a machine which shows their relationship to the universe, and except for Zaphd Beeeblebrox, everyone goes mad. In essence, I think that’s what it boils down to. Without religion, without god to intercede for us in the face of the cold, uncaring universe, our minds have to comprehend that all those important things – our mortgages, our children, our jobs – they mean nothing. We begin to grasp this through humour. The old joke – “If you think that no one will miss you, try not paying your mortgage for a couple of months” explains it best. It doesn’t say, “And you’ll notice the universe stops existing for a moment”. No, you will be missed by other human beings who are as unimportant as the next human being. “Remember that you are unique – just like everyone else”.
In the end, religion, worshiping god, praying that certain events not unfold, (“praying is way to feel useful without actually doing anything”) – all this has no effect at all. Sacrifice, green issues – this changes nothing. The world will end in 2012 – what can we do to prevent it? Nothing. The world will be hit by a meteor in a hundred years time – do I care? No, because I will be gone, and forgotten and certainly not looking down (or looking up!) from some point in the heavens.
So is there any point in denying god or revering him? I can see no difference in either point. It is two humans arguing whether red is better than blue.
Would you agree?

I hope this post comes over as intended – as a question, not a rant or tirade. I am a Dawkinite, but I wish to converse with you civilly, which is the spirit in which this is written.

Christians cannot accept Evolution as taking a chance on the existence of
our souls. Thus Evolution is against the Faith on all levels.