RealCatholicTV: Standing or Kneeling?

Michael Voris breaks down the argument of standing or kneeling at Mass in response to the recent comments of Cardinal Antonio Canizares Llovera and his statement that "Catholics receive Communion on the tongue and while kneeling."

YouTube Preview Image
  • Ed Hahnenberg

    A person with an S.T.B. has his own show on Church practice...Voris has little credibility in the universal church. Not only are his opinions skewed to the practices of the pre-Vatican church, but I thought his commentary on Fr. Corapi was, in a way, defending the indefensible.

    Communion on the tongue and kneeling is a return to days of old. I understand that Pope Benedict encourages the practice in private. I also agree that Catholic hymnology is often lacking in quality during the distribution of the Eucharist. However, we are where we are, with the option to receive in the hand while standing.

    The first Eucharist was celebrated by Christ passing the consecrated unleavened loaf around to the Apostles, presumably in a reclining position. No kneeling nor administration on the tongue.

    There is no disrespect in receiving in the hand while standing. Voris is promoting a minority view which, in a small way, is leading to two factions within the church.

  • Jeremy Steck

    Voris has many followers and many who don't like him, but he is very passionate about the Catholic Church and much of what he says rings true in today's church. I guess my question is what's wrong with returning to the "days of old" if it brings reverence to the Mass and moves us further away from some of the abuses of today's modern liturgy?

  • Ed Hahnenberg

    Voris is an pseudo-theologian whose work belongs in the black hole of his Vortex. With his background in communication, he produces a catchy in-your-face internet program with a heavy dose of ego. I wouldn't take him seriously unless you want to learn about what's wrong with TV that portends to be Catholic.

    Here's a commentary about him from the Archdiocese of Detroit where his programming has not been approved. : “In 2006, St. Michael’s Media of Ferndale, Michigan, through its chief executive, Michael Voris, and his associates, requested approval of its apostolate and programming from the Archdiocese of Detroit. The Detroit archdiocese responded to their initial submission and gave them direction as to the additional information and steps that would need to be taken. At issue was, and is, compliance with our basic archdiocesan media protocols and those of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). While there have been some discussions, the matter with St. Michael’s Media remains unresolved; it is not an approved apostolate.

    “In 2008, a Web-based video provider named RealCatholicTV.com was launched, with Michael Voris as the primary host, producer-writer and manager, utilizing new and archive program material produced and provided, primarily, by St. Michael’s Media. The RealCatholicTV enterprise has yet to present itself or receive approval of its apostolate and programming from the Detroit archdiocese.

    “Therefore, the catechetical presentations, the analysis of Catholic teachings or positions, and the commentary on Church leadership presented by St. Michael’s Media and/or RealCatholicTV— be they audio, video, or exclusively Web-based— cannot be approved or endorsed by the archdiocese at this time.”

    Ned McGrath
    Director of Communications
    Archdiocese of Detroit
    February 2011

    Later in April, he was banned from speaking in the Diocese of Scranton.

    Here's a press release from the diocese;

    "The Diocese of Scranton has determined that Mr. Voris will not be allowed to speak in a Diocesan or parish facility. After these engagements were scheduled, the Diocese became aware of concerns about this individual’s views regarding other religious groups. In videos posted on the Internet, Mr. Voris makes comments that certainly can be interpreted as being insensitive to people of other faiths. The Catholic Church teaches us to respect all people, regardless of their faith tradition.

    "Although the Diocese shares Mr. Voris’ support of efforts to protect human life, his extreme positions on other faiths are not appropriate and therefore the Diocese cannot host him."

    • Lionel Andrades

      Sunday, January 1, 2012
      ETERNAL WORD TELEVISION NETWORK (EWTN) SAYS 'SUBMISSION TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE SOVEREIGN PONTIFF IS NECESSARY FOR SALVATION'
      EWTN has placed on the Internet the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 addressed to the Archbishop of Boston (1) in which it says ‘submission to the Catholic Church and the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.’ The issue was the interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

      This was the same teaching of Fr.Leonard Feeney. He taught everyone needs to be a visible, explicit member of the Catholic Church for salvation.This was not the teaching of the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits there.They said there were exceptions to the dogma and so every one did not have to enter the Catholic Church.The exceptions for them could be people in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.

      EWTN also mentions ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible teaching’ . The dogma says every one needs to convert into the Church for salvation .No exceptions are mentioned. (2)

      EWTN refers to those saved with the baptism of desire etc.Since these cases are known only to God they are not exceptions to the dogma. We do not know a single case in the present times.

      Similarly Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance/good conscience) is not an exception to the dogma outside the church there is no salvation. Neither is it an exception to the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 issued during the pontificate of Venerable Pope Pius XII which says, ‘submission to the Catholic Church and the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.’

      It was Mother Angelica the founder of EWTN who affirmed the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and quoted the Church Fathers.She did not consider invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire as exceptions to the Church Fathers’ interpretation of the dogma.

      On doctrine/dogma the Letter of the Holy Office was a criticism of the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits who assumed that the baptism of desire etc were defacto known to us and so were exceptions to the centuries old interpretation of outside the church there is no salvation.The Letter of the Holy Office refers to implicit and not explicit (to us) baptism of desire. For the baptism of desire to be an exception to the dogma it would have to be explicit.(3)

      EWTN has also posted an article by the late Fr.William Most who also assumes that the baptism of desire etc are visible and an exception to the dogma. Fr.Most implies being saved in invincible ignorance is the ordinary means of salvation and so the American natives were saved before the Catholic missionaries arrived there.

      The Letter of the Holy Office indicates, like Vatican Council II (LG 14, AG 7) that Catholics Faith with the baptism of water is the ordinary means of salvation.So the American Natives before the missionaries were all oriented to Hell just like all non Catholics today in America unless they convert into the Catholic Church.

      The ordinary means of salvation is also not just beleiving in Jesus Christ without the Catholic Church according to EWTN. Just beleiving in Jesus is sufficient for salvation is a Protestant teaching rejected by the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. All Protestants are lost unless they convert into the only Church Jesus founded, according to EWTN, ‘submission to the Catholic Church and the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.’
      -Lionel Andrades

      1.
      http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdffeeny.htm

      2.
      http://catholicism.org/category/outside-the-church-there-is-no-salvation

      3.
      http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/search/label/Letter%20of%20the%20Holy%20Office%201949
      http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/search/label/Letter%20of%20the%20Holy%20Office%201949
      http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/12/if-you-say-that-baptism-of-desire-is.html#links

      • Ed Hahnenberg

        Lionel...I want you to reread how ridiculous your comments are...these are YOUR WORDS:

        "So the American Natives before the missionaries were all oriented to Hell just like all non Catholics today in America unless they convert into the Catholic Church."

        "The ordinary means of salvation is also not just beleiving in Jesus Christ without the Catholic Church according to EWTN. Just beleiving in Jesus is sufficient for salvation is a Protestant teaching rejected by the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. All Protestants are lost unless they convert into the only Church Jesus founded, according to EWTN, ‘submission to the Catholic Church and the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.’"

        If you really believe that ignorant American Natives and all Protestants who have died are in hell, wait until you meet God and find out how terribly mistaken you are. I expect to find countless Protestants far higher up in heaven than I. I cannot believe that ANY Catholic today would believe what you wrote. You belong to a long past myopic tunnel-vision group of pseudo-Catholics whose vision is that of a blind man.

        Also, I don't think many bishops find EWTN their primary teaching source for the faith.

  • OrganVirtuoso

    An interesting article here. It seems that the prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and and the Discipline of the Sacraments recommends that Catholics receive Communion on the tongue and while kneeling.

    From the article:

    "Spanish Cardinal Antonio Canizares Llovera recently recommended that Catholics receive Communion on the tongue, while kneeling.

    'It is to simply know that we are before God himself and that He came to us and that we are undeserving,' the prefect of the Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments said in an interview with CNA during his visit to Lima, Peru.

    The cardinal’s remarks came in response to a question on whether Catholics should receive Communion in the hand or on the tongue.

    He recommended that Catholics 'receive Communion on the tongue and while kneeling.'”

    Huh.

  • Ed Hahnenberg

    Uh-huh. I agree that the Spanish Cardinal (aka the "little Ratzinger) prefers communion on the tongue and while kneeling. He, however, is not the Church. Communion in the hand was common practice in the first millennium.

    One can turn to the book "God is near us", written by Cardinal Ratzinger in 2001. There is a small section in this book which treats of the two practices: Communion in the hand, standing, and Communion on the tongue, kneeling. Firstly, he counsels tolerance on both sides of the debate:

    "Well, first of all, I would like to say that both attitudes are possible, and I would like therefore, to ask all priests to exercise tolerance and to recognize the decision of each person; and I would further like to ask you to exercise the same tolerance and not to cast aspersions on anyone who may have opted for this or that way of doing it..."

    These are not the words of someone who is concerned that Communion in the hand may be destructive. In fact, he tries to counter arguments against those who would wish to censure the practice:

    "But you will ask: is tolerance the proper answer here? Or is it not misplaced with respect to this most holy thing? Well, here again we know that until the nineth century Communion was received in the hand standing... the Church could not have possibly been celebrating the Eucharist unworthily for nine hundred years."

    Then begins the historical argument in favour of communion in the hand. The Cardinal of course says that the contrary practice was a good thing too as the Church developed. He sums up his position by saying:

    "...it is quite wrong to argue about this or that form of behavior... we should not forget that not only our hands are impure but also our tongue and our heart and that we often sin more with the tongue than with the hands..."

    This is the position the Pope has taken for many years. In fact, if one reads the last quote logically, one should come to the conclusion that Communion in the hand is actually better than Communion on the tongue. But of course, the then Cardinal has missed most of the argument which traditionalists have used.

  • rscb

    Ah, yes — that "insensitive" Michael Voris. Interestingly, last year the bishop permitted a pro-abortion, pro-unnatural vice American University employee, Sara Bendoraitis, to speak at the University of Scranton. (Source) But, hey, she's not insensitive like Voris. I get it. from http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/110408

  • Ed Hahnenberg

    RSCB....Your link by Abbott, which led to anonymous information from an "insider" apparently has some truth to it. However, in speaking with a lifetime deacon of the archdiocese yesterday, I failed to pick up on any of this. Also, in earning an MA in scripture, which spanned a three year period at Sacred Heart Seminary (1997-99) while a teacher downstate, I never picked up on the outrageous claim of 50% HS priests...not even one. Nor was my seminary experience of 8 years ever once marred by the suggestion that there were homosexuals among the clergy and seminarians whom I knew. Whatever the truth of these allegations by this "insider", they leave a lot more questions than answers.

  • Jeremy Steck

    Thought I would share two articles by Mark Shea recently about Voris and RealCatholicTV since they've been making some headlines recently...

    http://www.ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/in-defense-of-michael-voris-and-simon-rafe/

    and

    http://www.ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/in-criticism-of-michael-voris/

  • Ed Hahnenberg

    Jeremy....Thanks for posting the two articles by Shea. I thought Shea's defense of Voris and Rafe was an example of watered-down Catholicism. For Voris to have employed the likes of Rafe gives you an example of an ignorant CEO at best. Shea made up for his hasty and ridiculous defense of Rafe's "creativity," and gave a stinging rebuke to Voris in the following:
    " My (Shea's) principal concern (is) with Mr. Voris’ M.O: the unflagging cocksureness that he is the arbiter of Truth (certainly not the bishops he endlessly flogs as CINOs if not outright traitors to the Faith) and that anybody Mr. Voris chooses to attack is an enemy of truth for whom the unity of the Church can be swiftly and easily sacrificed. Whether it’s a brave bishop investigating Fr. Corapi, somebody who receives communion in the hand or, most recently, a conservative and orthodox news agency that, in fact, told no lies in its coverage of Voris and Rafe, the perpetual narrative emitted by RCTV is that disagreement with or criticism of Michael Voris, a request for a little charity, or a call to remember unity can only proceed from a deceptive desire to “sacrifice truth.” If Mr. Voris marks you out as a liar who must be trapped and exposed, a progressive dissenter, an enemy of the Church, somebody bent on promoting abortion and gay marriage, ordaining women, destroying Catholic faith and practice, and trying with might and main to advance the work of Satan, then that’s what you are. It is unthinkable that you are actually a faithful, orthodox, and pious Catholic who seeks to follow Holy Church but disagrees that Real Catholic faith is defined by Michael Voris and Michael Voris alone."

    Conclusion? By their fruits you shall know them.

  • Lionel Andrades

    Michael Voris Hits the Jackpot…that is, “the dogma”- Brother André Marie MICM

    RealCatholicTV affirms the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus http://youtu.be/gaCbMcn46Wc

    Outside the Church there is no Salvation (Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus)

    “Outside the Church there is no salvation” (extra ecclesiam nulla salus) is a doctrine of the Catholic Faith that was taught By Jesus Christ to His Apostles, preached by the Fathers, defined by popes and councils and piously believed by the faithful in every age of the Church. Here is how the Popes defined it:

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

    • “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

    • “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

    But man, following the example of his natural father, Adam, often disobeys the authority of God. The fact that the doctrine had to be thrice defined itself proves the Church’s paternal solicitude in correcting her erring children who fall into indifferentism. The first goal of Saint Benedict Center’s doctrinal Crusade is to defend this doctrine. We present here a selection of various articles written for that end.

    Here are some recommended starting points on this all-important subject:

    • The Popes on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus

    • The Fathers of the Church on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus

    • Doctrinal Summary

    • Sentimental Theology

    • Pelagius Lives

    • Our Status in the Church (focusing on the doctrinal stance of Saint Benedict Center and the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary) –from the website Catholicism.org
    -Lionel Andrades

  • Lionel Andrades

    Saturday, September 24, 2011
    APPEAL TO CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, VATICAN: IT’S TIME TO CLARIFY THE BOSTON HERESY OF RICHARD CUSHING

    CDF THERE IS NO EXPLICIT BAPTISM OF DESIRE AND NO TEXT MENTIONS IT: THERE IS NO KNOWN EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS OR TO VATICAN COUNCIL II (LG 14, AG 7)

    PLEASE CORRECT THE ERROR OF EWTN, USCCB, WIKIPEDIA AND NUMEROUS OTHERS.

    To His Eminence William Cardinal Levada,
    Prefect, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican.

    Your Eminence,

    The Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing refused to affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was interpreted by Church Councils, the Church Fathers, popes, saints and Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston. He denied that everyone needed to be a visible, explicit member of the Catholic Church for salvation with no exceptions. Instead he suggested that there were cases of non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire and this was explicitly known to us. He placed restrictions on the priestly faculties of Fr. Leonard Feeney even though the priest was not in heresy. He never corrected the Boston newspapers which reported that the Catholic Church has changed its centuries-old teaching on extra ecclesiam nulla salus. He refused to make the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 public for three years and even then would not lift the excommunication placed on Fr. Leonard Feeney for disobedience.

    The same error of Richard Cushing is being made by Eternal Word Television Network(EWTN) in a report its has placed on the internet titled Tragic Errors of Fr. Leonard Feeney.The article by Fr.William Most is also available on EWTN's website.

    Similarly the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in the Notification on Fr. Peter Phan has stated that every one needs to enter the Church for salvation except for those in invincible ignorance etc. They are implying that invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and that we know explicit cases.

    Wikipedia, the encyclopedia on the Internet makes the same error and this is a false catechesis of Catholics and misinformation about the teachings of the Catholic Church.

    Kindly address this issue and prevent the slander of a good priest who was faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church on extra ecclesiam nulla which Venerable Pope Pius XII referred to as 'the dogma', the 'infallible teaching'(Letter of the Holy Office 1949).

    In Christ

    Lionel Andrades
    Catholic layman in Rome.
    E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com
    Blog: http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/

    ROBERT KENNEDY ASKED RICHARD CUSHING TO SUPPRESS FR.LEONARD FEENEY http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2010/07/robert-kennedy-asked-richard-cushing-to.html

    EWTN REMOVES FR.CORAPI BUT CONTINUES TO TEACH HERESY ON FR.LEONARD FEENEY WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE LOCAL BISHOP
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/09/ewtn-removes-frcorapi-but-continues-to.html

    USCCB CLARIFICATION IN HERESY?
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2010/05/usccb-clarification-in-heresy.html#links

    USCCB CONTINUES TO MOCK CATHOLIC FAITH WHILE CDF COMMENT IS AWAITED : FEENEYISM IS THE OFFICIAL TEACHING OF THE MAGISTERIUM
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2010/08/usccb-continues-to-mock-catholic-faith.html#links

    TO INTERPRET IMPLICIT FAITH (BAPTISM OF DESIRE ETC) AS REFERRING TO DE FACTO SALVATION WOULD BE HERESY- Don Massimiliano dei Gaspari F.I, Superior and Italian priest in Rome
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2010/04/to-interpret-implicit-faith-baptism-of.html#links

    SECULAR CATECHESIS FOR CATHOLICS : NO ONE OBJECTS IN THE MEDIA
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/08/secular-catechesis-for-catholics-no-one.html#links

    THE MAGISTERIAL TEXTS, LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949, VATICAN COUNCIL II ETC USE THE DEJURE-DEFACTO LOGIC
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/09/magisterial-texts-letter-of-holy-office.html

    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/09/appeal-to-congregation-for-doctrine-of.html

  • Ed Hahnenberg

    Lionel...Scripture and Tradition both affirm that the Holy Spirit will guide the Church to the truth. Papal bulls and even some magisterial teachings don't hold up to the standard of infallibility. I'm thinking of the magisterial commentaries from the PBC on the interpretation of scripture in the early decade of the 1900s. Baptism of desire was not defined until Trent. Further, Vatican II in Lumen Gentium, par. 16, has this to say:

    "Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God. In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh. On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues. But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohammedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life."

    Get with the program, sir, and look to the spirit of Christ's coming. Excluding any of God's children from the banquet is a slippery slope as Jesus pointed out to the Pharisees.

    • Lionel Andrades

      Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance/good conscience) is not an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
      Since we do not know any explicit case of a person saved in invincible ignorance, the baptism of desire or a good conscience.

      It was not an issue in the Church until the Archbishop of Boston made it one.

      Lumen Gentium 14, Ad Gentes 7 Vatican Council II like the dogma says all need to enter the Church for salvation (to avoid Hell).

  • Lionel Andrades

    ARCHBISHOP OF BOSTON CARDINAL RICHARD CUSHINGS LEGACY: FOLLOWERS INCLUDE USCCB, EWTN, CATHOLIC ANSWERS, SSPX, SEDEVACANTISTS MHFM
    He assumed the baptism of desire was visible and so contradicted the dogma outside the church there is no salvation. He assumed that those saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance were known to us and so it contradicts Fr. Leonard Feeney’s traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

    Since the time of the Archbishop Cardinal Richard Cushing it is assumed there are two interpretations of the dogma. 1)the rigorist interpretation of Fr. Leonard Feeney, the popes and saints and 2) the non rigorist interpretation. The non rigorist interpretation says everyone needs to enter the Church for salvation except for those in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. It is assumed here that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma. So this is a ‘new ‘interpretation.

    We now know that there is only one interpretation of the dogma, the centuries old interpretation since the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are not known to us.

    It is assumed that Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance, good conscience) is an exception to the dogma. This would be assuming that those saved in invincible ignorance are defacto known to us in particular cases. We know that they are not visible and explicitly known to us but known only to God. So they are not exceptions to the dogma.

    De facto everyone needs to enter the Church for salvation. De jure in principle those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are known only to God. The baptism of water is explicit. The baptism of desire is implicit.

    The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was addressed directly to the Archbishop of Boston. It was critical of the Archbshop. It mentioned ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible statement’. The dogma does not mention any exceptions. The dogma also indicates, like Fr. Leonard Feeney, that everyone needs to explicitly enter the Church for salvation.

    Today the USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops), Eternal Word Television Network, Catholic Answers, Society of St. Pius X, Pontifical seminaries and universities, sedevacantists, priests, nuns and lay Catholics are all unknowingly following the legacy of the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits of Boston College.

    They assume the baptism of desire etc is visible and so is an exception to the dogma.

    p.s. Ed.
    The Holy Spirit guides the popes and Catholic tradition.
    The baptism of desire was an issue created by the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing.
    Lumen Gentium 16 which you have quoted does not contradict the dogma or Scripture (Mk:16:16 etc)

  • Ed Hahnenberg

    Lionel...Baptism of desire and blood have been taught by doctors of the Church throughout her history from the earliest days down to recent times. One example: St. Gregory Nazianzen in a sermon preached in 381 mentions Baptism of water, of Martyrdom and of tears (desire).

    Baptism of desire is not the sacrament of baptism of water and yet applying the term “baptism” to the baptism of blood and baptism of desire has been a practice of the Church for centuries. In both cases, no one is denying the primary term. On the same point, St. Albert the Great says that the baptism of blood and the baptism of desire can only be called baptism when water baptism is lacking.

    In this sense, "Baptisms of desire" and "Baptism of blood" are not sacraments, but simply fulfill the requirements when the sacrament cannot be received due to extraordinary circumstances.

    Par. 1258 of the Catholic Catechism states: "The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament."

    I maintain, with Vatican II's decree "Lumen Gentium," that Divine Providence will not deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life...and that obviously includes agnostics and invincibly ignorant atheists.

  • Lionel Andrades

    Lionel...Baptism of desire and blood have been taught by doctors of the Church throughout her history from the earliest days down to recent times. One example: St. Gregory Nazianzen in a sermon preached in 381 mentions Baptism of water, of Martyrdom and of tears (desire).

    Yes Ed we agree. However none of them implies that it is a contradiction of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or that it is the ordinary means of salvation.
    So Lumen Gentium 16 being implicit and known only to God is not an exception to the dogma and the ‘rigorist interpretation’ of the dogma for centuries.
    So a person can die with the baptism of blood but we do not claim that we can judge who these cases are and that they are an exception to the dogmatic teaching.
    We do not deny the baptism of desire and blood only we do not postulate that they are explicitly known to us.
    We accept in theory the possibility of a person being saved with the baptism of desire etc. Practically the baptism of water and Catholic Faith in the Catholic Church is the ordinary means of salvation.
    We will leave the faith of infants and insane people to the mercy of God. However all sane adults can only choose the baptism of water in the Catholic Church for salvation. One cannot choose the baptism of desire or being saved in invincible ignorance etc.

    • Ed Hahnenberg

      Lionel...In this reply, you are more reasonable.

  • Lionel Andrades

    Sunday, January 8, 2012
    Practically everyone needs the baptism of water for salvation while in theory a person can be saved with the baptism of desire - Rector, Church Santa Maria Annunziata, Rome

    Being saved with the baptism of desire etc he said is an impossibility. ( ‘impossibilisimo’).The Franciscan had got it right. The baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are not ‘practical’ ( defacto) exceptions .To claim that they are practical exceptions would be indifferentism and syncretism. It would be a negation of an infallible teaching. This would be a mortal sin and heresy. The stuff of excommunications. It would be a sacrilege for the priest offering Holy Mass.

    Today morning at 10.30 a.m the priest offered Holy Mass in Italian with his face towards the altar and not the congregation. Communicants also received the Eucharist kneeling on a single pew, placed in the centre aisle.He was the Rector of the Church, Santa Maria di Annunziata, Rome.The Rector from the community Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate founded by Fr. Stefano Manelli F.I spoke on the necessity of the baptism of water for all people to go to Heaven.

    On the feast of the baptism of Our Lord, in his homily he said, that being saved with the baptism of desire is an impossibility and is accepted only in theory.

    Most of his homily dealt with the subject of the necessity of the baptism of water for salvation. The ordinary means.

    There is the need for missionaries he said who would go out to the pagans. The Church is missionary.

    The Rector based his talk on the teachings of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. However he left out the issue of the Protestants and the Orthodox Christians who were baptized with water.

    Protestants who die immediately after receiving the baptism of water I thought could go to Heaven. If they lived on after baptism they would need to live the Gospel according to the teachings of the Catholic Church and with the necessary helps of the Sacraments. Without the Sacraments of the Catholic Church they cannot go to Heaven. This is similar to a Catholic in mortal sin who does not use the Sacrament of Penance.He would be on the way to Hell.

    The homily today was on a positive and pleasant note according to the instructions of the Vatican and the Vicariate. Since I have been writing on this subject I could understand the priest’s nuances and accent of certain points. In brief what he was saying, and not saying clearly and directly, is that millions of people are oriented to Hell. Since they are not in the Catholic Church.

    He was saying really that all the members of non Christian religions (Hindus, Jews, Muslims etc) are oriented to Hell ‘practically’ and we do not know any case ‘practically’, of a non Catholic saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance.

    So ‘practically’ there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Since only ‘in theory’ we accept that a non Catholic can be saved with a baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance.

    The ordinary way ‘to go to Paradise’ (and avoid the fires of Hell) is the baptism of water given to adults with Catholic Faith in the Catholic Church.

    I was thinking to myself, that since practically we do not know any case of a person saved in invincible ignorance, CCC 847-848 (invincible ignorance) is superfluous in the Catechism of the Catholic Church under the subheading Outside the Church No Salvation. Since in reality (practically) we do not know these ‘exceptions’.They cannot be exceptions to the traditional teaching that everyone needs to convert into the Church to avoid Hell.

    The Catechism could suggest wrongly, or the reader could imply wrongly, that those saved with the baptism of desire are known to us practically. These cases it could be implied wrongly, are not just theoretical .

    Also in these times the confusion has increased. Now due to political pressure the Vatican is teaching wrongly that Jews do not have to convert into the Church for salvation in the present times and that there is no attempt by the Church to convert Orthodox Christians.

    Yet according to the dogma Cantate Domino, Council of Florence and according to the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, all Jews, Orthodox Christians and Protestants are oriented to Hell unless they convert into the Catholic Church.

    The Franciscan priest recalled Jesus’ missionary teaching to ‘go out into the whole world and proclaim the Good News and baptize all people .Those who believe will be saved, those who are not baptized and do not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:15-16).Jews,Othodox Christians and Protestants do not believe within the Catholic Church.

    The Franciscan had got it right. The baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are not ‘practical’( defacto) exceptions.To claim that they are practical exceptions would be indifferentism and syncretism. It would be a negation of an infallible teaching. This would be a mortal sin and heresy. The stuff of excommunications. It would be a sacrilege for the priest offering Holy Mass.-Lionel Andrades
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2012/01/practically-everyone-needs-baptism-of.html

    • Ed Hahnenberg

      Lionel...In this reply, you revert to the rigorist approach, which I clearly have rejected. What do you mean by being "oriented to hell"? That, in itself, is an oxymoron.

      Christ died that all might be saved. If invincible ignorance prevents baptism of water, or blood, then God saves those "oriented to hell" by an implied baptism of desire.

      You really should reread your replies. For example, in this reply you state: "The ordinary way ‘to go to Paradise’ (and avoid the fires of Hell) is the baptism of water given to adults with Catholic Faith in the Catholic Church."

      That statement agrees somewhat with the Anabaptist position...that infant baptism doesn't count...which was rejected even by Luther.

  • Lionel Andrades

    Ed says:Lionel...In this reply, you revert to the rigorist approach, which I clearly have rejected. What do you mean by being "oriented to hell"? That, in itself, is an oxymoron.

    Lionel.Ed what you have rejected is the official teaching of the Catholic Church according to Magisterial texts. The Holy Spirit has guided the Church over the centuries to teach what you call the rigorist approach.

    Ed says:
    Christ died that all might be saved.
    Lionel:
    Yes Christ died to save all, however to receive this salvation one needs to enter the Catholic Church.One has to respond.
    (Ref.Dominus Iesus 20, Vatican Council II (AG7,LG 14), Cantate Domino Council of Florence, Mark 15:15-16, John 3:5 etc.)

    Ed:
    If invincible ignorance prevents baptism of water, or blood, then God saves those "oriented to hell" by an implied baptism of desire.

    Lionel:
    Invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are not opposed to the baptism of water. The former is a possibility known only to God.The ordinary way is Catholic Faith and the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.

    Ed:
    You really should reread your replies. For example, in this reply you state: "The ordinary way ‘to go to Paradise’ (and avoid the fires of Hell) is the baptism of water given to adults with Catholic Faith in the Catholic Church."

    That statement agrees somewhat with the Anabaptist position...that infant baptism doesn't count...which was rejected even by Luther.

    Lionel: We will leave infants and the insane to the mercy of God.
    The ordinary means of salvation for all adults is Catholic Faith with the Baptism of water in the Catholic Church.

    • Ed Hahnenberg

      Lionel...What I've gathered in our back and forth is that you are a layperson in Italy spreading your narrow, and often incorrect, theology through various websites. I'll list just three:

      http://www.colve.org/?p=178
      http://en.gloria.tv/?user=43894
      (On this one, the heading is "The More Catholic the Better.)
      http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2012/01/practically-everyone-needs-baptism-of.html (YOUR BLOG)

      You are stuck in the literalness of past Church statements. You love to copy and paste. You do not understand the context and age in which past papal or conciliar statements were written, their relative binding force, etc., and cannot see the forest for the trees. There is no rejection on my part of current theological thinking re: EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS.

      I'll just end this back and forth with you because you bring no academic credentials to the discussion that I know of; you write with no ecclesiastical approval; and dialogue with you is fruitless because you are blinded by ignorance. Pray that the Holy Spirit guide you to all truth. Arrivederci.

  • Lionel Andrades

    A Catholic who rejects a defined dogma like outside the church no salvation is automatically excomunicated. He has no right to use the word 'Catholic'. It applies to you Ed.
    Could it be that Bishops Allen Vigneron and Kevin Rhoades are under pressure too ? Could they come under leftist hate laws, which are Catholic-specific, if they do not disown Michael Vorris and Real Catholic TV.com ?

    I had been writing to many religious in the Diocese of Pennsylvania,Harrisburg where Bishop Rhoades was originally posted.This was during the controversy there. Bishop Rhoades could not say that Jews need to convert into the Church for salvation, is the teaching of the Church. Robert Sungenis called the bishop; his bishop, and also Catholics United for the Faith,Steubenville, ‘heretics’.They still did not affirm the faith and began a campaign against Robert to make him change his views.

    Now Michael Vorris has affirmed the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and has produced some good videos on the Jews and the subject of the Catholic Church being the continuation of the Jewish religion.

    Real Catholic TV.com’s financier however lives in the diocese of Bishop Rhoades and could be asked to remove the name 'Catholic' .

    Robert Sungenis has changed the name of his website to the Bellarmine Report and continues th same apostolate.He still says that Jesus, the Catholic Church and the Bible teaches that Jews need to convert.

    He disagrees with the ADL , telling Catholics what to believe, and says Catholics are the Chosen People of God now, the people of the New Covenant (Nostra Aetate,Vatican Council II). Also Vatican Council II,Nostra Aetate does not say that Jews or other non Catholics, do not have to convert into the Catholic Church. This is the propaganda posted on the website of the Boston Archdiocese.

    It's unlikely that Bishop Kevin Rhoades would affirm this same teaching in public. So when Wikipedia reports that Robert Sungenis has been corrected by 'ecclesiastical authority', so what ? The ecclesiastical authority, in this case, is the local bishop, who is not affirming a defined dogma.

    A Catholic who rejects a defined dogma like outside the church no salvation is automatically excomunicated. He has no right to use the word 'Catholic'.

    According to Canon Law a bishop(juridical) person needs to be a Catholic.
    To deny an ex cathedra dogma in public is a mortal sin and the bishop according to Canon Law is not to offer Mass unless he makes a public clarification to remove the scandal and receives absolution.

    Ed do you meet the standards of Canon Law with your assertion that Lumen Gentium is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?

    -Lionel Andrades