Author Topic: RICHARD CUSHING,JESUITS HERESY : BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS EXPLICIT (Read 3438 times)

LionelAndrades · « **on:** June 17, 2010, 04:28:23 AM »

ARCHBISHOP CUSHING AND THE JESUITS CONSIDERED THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE AS EXPLICIT INSTEAD OF IMPLICIT THIS IS HERESY: VATICAN REOPEN THE BOSTON CASE

The Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits expelled Fr.Leonard Feeney since he said that everyone needs to explicitly enter the Catholic Church to avoid Hell and there were no exceptions. The Archbishop and the Jesuits said he was wrong. They said those who are in invincible ignorance and who have the baptism of desire they can be saved.They were implying that the baptism of desire was explicit and not implicit and so it contradicted the infallible teaching that there were no exceptions to the baptism of water and Catholic Faith.

The same false interpretation is being made with Lumen Gentium 16, Vatican Council II.This is heresy.

This was a major change in Catholic teaching in the 1940s and it seemed not checked by the Church because of the power of the Jєωιѕн Left media. The media promoted the error and even good Catholics accepted the falsehood.

The Archbishop protected himself and the Jesuits from excommunication because of his position and power. The Vatican was coordinating through him.

Time shows it was the Archbishop who was in heresy,intentional or not.

If the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance refer to explicit salvation it contradicts the ex cathedra teaching extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It also contradicts the dogma on the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra.
It is also irrational since we do not know any particular case, explicitly, of the baptism of desire.

LionelAndrades · « **Reply #1 on:** June 17, 2010, 04:31:16 AM »

Quote from: LionelAndrades

ARCHBISHOP CUSHING AND THE JESUITS CONSIDERED THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE AS EXPLICIT INSTEAD OF IMPLICIT THIS IS HERESY: VATICAN REOPEN THE BOSTON CASE

The Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits expelled Fr.Leonard Feeney since he said that everyone needs to explicitly enter the Catholic Church to avoid Hell and there were no exceptions. The Archbishop and the Jesuits said he was wrong. They said those who are in invincible ignorance and who have the baptism of desire they can be saved.They were implying that the baptism of desire was explicit and not implicit and so it contradicted the infallible teaching that there were no exceptions to the baptism of water and Catholic Faith.

The same false interpretation is being made with Lumen Gentium 16, Vatican Council II.This is heresy.

This was a major change in Catholic teaching in the 1940s and it seemed not checked by the Church because of the power of the Jєωιѕн Left media. The media promoted the error and even good Catholics accepted the falsehood.

The Archbishop protected himself and the Jesuits from excommunication because of his position and power. The Vatican was coordinating through him.

Time shows it was the Archbishop who was in heresy,intentional or not.

If the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance refer to explicit salvation it contradicts the ex cathedra teaching extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It also contradicts the dogma on the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra.
It is also irrational since we do not know any particular case, explicitly, of the baptism of desire.

Vatican reopen the Boston case. Justice delayed is justice denied. The ex cathedra dogma says everyone needs to be a visible member of the Church. So does Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. Fr. Leonard Feeney affirmed the infallible teaching. He had integrity and courage. Was the Archbishop of Boston in heresy? Are the Jesuits at Boston College still in heresy?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #2 on:** June 17, 2010, 04:38:47 AM »

Where's the smilie with my head exploding?

Could you please define what you mean by explicit vs. implicit BoD?

You refer to "explicit salvation". When most people use the term explicit Baptism of Desire, they mean the explicit desire for Baptism, not an explicit baptism (by way of desire).

What I think you're getting at is something Caminus articulated, that cases of BoD are purely hypothetical exceptions and known only to God.

LionelAndrades · « **Reply #3 on:** June 17, 2010, 08:50:48 AM »

Ladislaus

Quote

Could you please define what you mean by explicit vs. implicit BoD?

There is no explicit baptism of desire. Baptism of desire is always implicit.

Quote

You refer to "explicit salvation".

It is salvation received explicilty i.e through the baptism of water and Catholic Faith. This is the ordinary way of salvation for all.

Quote

When most people use the term explicit Baptism of Desire,

There is no explicit Baptism of Desire.

Quote

they mean the explicit desire for Baptism, not an explicit baptism (by way of desire).

The desire for baptism in such cases is always implicit. The caes are unknown to us.

Belloc · « **Reply #4 on:** June 17, 2010, 09:01:52 AM »

Quote from: LionelAndrades

There is no explicit baptism of desire. Baptism of desire is always implicit.

statement-I belevie and wish to be baptized.

Webster's 1828 dictionary:

explicit
EXPLIC'IT, a. [L. explicitus, part of explico, to unfold.]

1. Literally, unfolded. Hence, plain in language; open to the understanding; clear, not obscure or ambiguous; express, not merely implied. An explicit proposition or declaration is that in which the words, in their common acceptation, express the true meaning of the person who utters them, and in which there is no ambiguity or disguise.
2. Plain; open; clear; unreserved; having no disguised meaning or reservation; applied to persons. He was explicit in his terms.

implicit
IMPLIC'IT, a. [L. implicitus, from implico, supra.]

1. Infolded; entangled; complicated.

In his woolly fleece

I cling implicit. [Little used.]

2. Implied; tacitly comprised; fairly to be understood, though not expressed in words; as an implicit contract or agreement.

3. Resting on another; trusting to the word or authority of another, without doubting or reserve, or without examining into the truth of the thing itself. Thus we give implicit credit or confidence to the declarations of a person of known veracity. We receive with implicit faith whatever God has clearly revealed

Conclusion-is explicit not better and clearer to those around the fewllo above that states
1, He beleives
2. wishes to be baptized

Implict may work with God, who knows the hearts and minds, but for those of us here, explicit is more assured understanding of what the fellow thinks