Author Topic: RICHARD CUSHING,JESUITS HERESY : BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS EXPLICIT (Read 2193 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

Raoul76 · « **Reply #5 on:** June 17, 2010, 03:30:18 PM »

I knew I had seen your name somewhere before, you were on Pascendi's forum, right? You loaded all the threads with what felt like cut-and-pasted material from your archives. That site is melting down so I guess the refugees are arriving here on drier shores.

Quote

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

If I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that perhaps this person doesn't really want to be baptized, and even if he's a catechumen we can't know for sure. Maybe he is having mental reservations or whatnot. Therefore a desire for baptism is always implicit.

You don't need to make this more complicated than it already is. When theologians say "explicit baptism of desire" they are describing those who are catechumens or have expressed a wish to join the Church and who, based on the external evidence, have an explicit desire for baptism.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #6 on:** June 17, 2010, 03:39:14 PM »

Quote

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.

Okay, this will be my last message to you, my confused friend, until you stop cut-and-pasting and acknowledge the posts to you. You shouldn't be lecturing or hectoring anyone until you get your facts straight.

1) Vatican II does not teach Feeneyism. Not even close.

2) Ladislaus and I have already explained to you that the 1949 Holy Office letter does not teach what you are saying, but the exact opposite -- it teaches that implicit faith suffices for salvation.

3) The Holy Office letter of 1949 was WRITTEN by Abp. Cushing, who you rightly say was a proponent of implicit faith.

You remind me of John Gregory who used to be on this site and who would use the Allocution of Midwives to say that Pius XII was against NFP! I don't know what is going on in some brains out there. This is the kind of confusion people can apparently succuмb to when they only see what they want to see and not what is really there.

LionelAndrades · « **Reply #7 on:** June 18, 2010, 03:27:44 AM »

Belloc,

Quote

LionelAndrades said:
There is no explicit baptism of desire. Baptism of desire is always implicit.

Quote

statement-I belevie and wish to be baptized.

'I believe and I wish to be baptized', here we have a case of explicit baptism. The baptism of water will be given to you after you have learnt the Catholic Faith and it is explicilty checked by your teacher.

So this is not the implicit baptism of desire.
__________________________________________________

Quote

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.]

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

There is ONLY explicit baptism that we can conduct and know. This is the ordinary way of salvation in the Catholic Church.

Quote

1, He beleives
2. wishes to be baptized

The above refers to explicit baptism.He wishes to be baptized and so will receive the baptism of water.
If he dies before this happens only God can judge his case. You and I do not know if he had a genuine baptism of desire.

Quote

Implict may work with God, who knows the hearts and minds,

Correct.
but for those of us here, explicit is more assured
True. It is the only baptism we know. We do not know any cases of implicit baptism of desire.

Quote

understanding of what the fellow thinks

Unclear.
In Christ
Lionel

LionelAndrades · « **Reply #8 on:** June 18, 2010, 03:40:19 AM »

Ladislaus

Quote

I knew I had seen your name somewhere before, you were on Pascendi's forum, right? You loaded all the threads with what felt like cut-and-pasted material from your archives. That site is melting down so I guess the refugees are arriving here on drier shores.

Ladislaus I have been writing on this subject for over the last 10 years. I am glad you monitor Pascendis, it is a good forum. There members have a lot in common with the members of this forum.We need to work together.
Quote:

Quote

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

If I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that perhaps this person doesn't really want to be baptized,

I am saying that we only know about 'this person' in principle, intellectually and it is subjective knowledge for us.
If he has a genuine baptism of desire, God will judge and only God will know.

Quote

and even if he's a catechumen we can't know for sure.

Correct.

Maybe he is having mental reservations or whatnot.

No, but because we do not know any particular case, we can only assume and talk about it in principle. It is not de facto, explicit.

Quote

Therefore a desire for baptism is always implicit.

It is only known in principle, de jure.

Quote

You don't need to make this more complicated than it already is. When theologians say "explicit baptism of desire"

There is no explicit baptism of desire and people who are not discerning, Catholics, fall for the media propaganda,especially of those theologians who are given prominence because they teach the lie.

they are describing those who are catechumens or have expressed a wish to join the Church and who, based on the external evidence, have an explicit desire for baptism.
There is no external evidence for a baptism of desire.Please think on this point.
If a catechumen expresses a wish for baptism he is asking for the baptism of water which is the normal way for all people to go to Heaven.
In Christ
Lionel

LionelAndrades · « **Reply #9 on:** June 18, 2010, 03:55:49 AM »

Quote

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.

Quote

Okay, this will be my last message to you, my confused friend, until you stop cut-and-pasting and acknowledge the posts to you. You shouldn't be lecturing or hectoring anyone until you get your facts straight.

Quote

1) Vatican II does not teach Feeneyism. Not even close.

Here is Vatican Council II Ad Gentes 7.

‘…the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved…’-Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II (Emphasis added)

‘…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. Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."…’-Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II (Emphasis added)

Catechism of the Catholic Church : 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

Quote

2) Ladislaus and I have already explained to you that the 1949 Holy Office letter does not teach what you are saying, but the exact opposite -- it teaches that implicit faith suffices for salvation.

Pope Pius XII called this dogma the 'infallible' teaching in the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr.Leonard Feeney (1949).

Quote

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). Emphasis added.

Here is the ex cathedra dogma.

Quote

1. “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215). Ex Cathedra

2. “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.) Ex Cathedra

3.“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jєωs 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 and “No Salvation outside the Church”: Link List, the Three Dogmatic Statements Regarding EENS http://nosalvationoutsideofthecatholicchurch.blogspot.com/

[/b]

Quote

3) The Holy Office letter of 1949 was WRITTEN by Abp. Cushing, who you rightly say was a proponent of implicit faith.

He was a proponent of explicit-implicit faith. Here is the problem The heresy still continues.

You remind me of John Gregory who used to be on this site and who would use the Allocution of Midwives to say that Pius XII was against NFP! I don't know what is going on in some brains out there. This is the kind of confusion people can apparently succuмb to when they only see what they want to see and not what is really there.

There is a lot of calculated confusion being put out on the Boston Case over the last 50 years or more. So I can understand your problem. I hope over time you will see through this confusion.
In Christ
Lionel

Raoul76 · « **Reply #10 on:** June 18, 2010, 04:07:20 AM »

Lionel, you are giving me vertigo.

1949 Letter of the Holy Office, Suprema Haec Sacra --

Quote

"In its own way, the same thing must be said about the Church, insofar as the Church itself is a general help to salvation. Therefore, in order 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 required that at least he be united to it by intention and desire.

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 intention (votum) which is so called because it is included in that good disposition of the 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.” For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are really (in re) incorporated into the Church as members and those who are joined to it only in intention (in voto)."

Even Vatican II was never this definite on implicit faith being valid for salvation. This letter poses a massive problem. It unambigiously attempts to make salvation by implicit faith a dogma, something that was previously a theological speculation -- the problem is that this was done, or was attempted, under the auspices of a questionable Pope and a more than questionable future Cardinal who was a bigwig of the Vatican II Council.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #11 on:** June 18, 2010, 06:11:46 AM »

Here's my best interpretation:

What he means by "explicit" vs. "implicit", i.e. why "implicit" is O and "explicit" isn't, is that he means that if there's BoD it's known only to God and is completely hypothetical--similar to what Caminus has argued.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #12 on:** June 18, 2010, 07:04:29 AM »

Yeah, I suggested that somewhere up there. Whatever. The Church situation doesn't need to be any more complicated than it already is and "explicit baptism of desire" is a venerable and accepted theological concept. I don't know if Lionel is trying to be clever, but everyone knows what "explicit baptism of desire" means. It doesn't mean we know for sure if anyone qualifies, because we don't see their heart at the moment of death; but from the external evidence, a catechumen has expressed the wish to be baptized, and if he dies would qualify for baptism of desire unless he underwent some kind of internal secret apostasy.

LionelAndrades · « **Reply #13 on:** June 18, 2010, 09:18:40 AM »

Praised be Jesus and Our Lady
1949 Letter of the Holy Office, Suprema Haec Sacra --

Quote

"In its own way, the same thing must be said about the Church, insofar as the Church itself is a general help to salvation. Therefore, in order 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 required that at least he be united to it by intention and desire.

The Baptism of water and Catholic Faith is the normal,ordinary way to go to Heaven however 'in certain circuмstances'(Letter of the Holy Office 1949) a person can be saved with the baptism of desire etc.
So everyone needs to be an explicit member of the Catholic Church for salvation and there are no exceptions(explicitly) and if anyone is saved with implicit baptism of desire it is known to God.
Implicit baptism of desire should not be posited against the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Otherwise it then becomes the Cushing Doctrine, something which is not part of the deposit of the faith( the explicit baptism of desire which you can judge in the person before you).

Quote

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 intention (votum) which is so called because it is included in that good disposition of the soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.

So we accept baptism of desire in principle as implicit salvation.

Quote

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.” For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are really (in re) incorporated into the Church as members and those who are joined to it only in intention (in voto)."

1.Those who are incorporated with the baptism of water and Catholic Faith and
2. Those who are in invincible ignorance or have the baptism of water and are saved.

Even Vatican II was never this definite on implicit faith being valid for salvation. This letter poses a massive problem. It unambigiously attempts to make salvation by implicit faith a dogma, something that was previously a theological speculation --

It still is a theological speculation.However the Jєωιѕн Left media promoted it as a dogma after the Boston Case. They had the help of the Archbishops and the then Jesuits.Even today it is falsely posited as being part of the deposit of the faith. I agree with you.

the problem is that this was done, or was attempted, under the auspices of a questionable Pope and a more than questionable future Cardinal who was a bigwig of the Vatican II Council.

I think Pope Pius XII tried to rectify the situation but he had too much against him. The media was dominated by the Jєωιѕн Left and they kept repeating the lie. The Letter of the Holy Office was made public after some three years and that too on the Vatican's insistence.
In Christ
Lionel

LionelAndrades · « **Reply #14 on:** June 18, 2010, 09:28:05 AM »

"explicit baptism of desire" is a venerable and accepted theological concept.
It is 'veneralble' over the last 60-plus years and accepted if one reads the secular newspapers.
It was not so before the 1940's.
Anyway, rationally there is no explicit baptism of desire.Could you say that last month there were eight cases of the baptism of desire in Rome ? Can you judge who has genuine invincible ignorance?
I

Quote

don't know if Lionel is trying to be clever, but everyone knows what "explicit baptism of desire" means

.
Catholics who read the false, calculated propaganda on this issue 'know there is the explicit baptism of desire'.

Quote

It doesn't mean we know for sure if anyone qualifies, because we don't see their heart at the moment of death; but from the external evidence, a catechumen has expressed the wish to be baptized, and if he dies would qualify for baptism of desire unless he underwent some kind of internal secret apostasy.

The case of this catechumen is something we are discussing in principle.

Quote

if he dies would qualify for baptism of desire unless he underwent some kind of internal secret apostasy.

God will decide only. For us this is just a conceptual case.