Expert: Griff Ruby - 7/27/2011

Question
QUESTION: Friday, July 22, 2011
SSPX UNABLE TO PROCLAIM THAT ALL NON CATHOLIC PARTICIPANTS AT ASSISI 2011 ARE ON THE PATH TO HELL
The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) is unable to say that all the non Catholics participating at the inter religious meeting at Assisi this October are on the path to Hell. The SSPX cannot affirm Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441 since they believe that those who are saved in invincible ignorance or with the baptism of desire are not implicit cases, instead, they are explicitly known to us and so contradict Cantate Domino on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.


They are so confused that Bishop Bernard Fellay is not expected to answer the previous post on this blog just as he has never answered other SSPX-related posts e-mailed to him.


The problem is that the SSPX interprets Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre as referring to de facto baptism of desire which is knowable to us in the present times. Yet the baptism of desire is known only to God. It can only be known to us in principle, as a concept. It is de facto only for God. So how can they interpret Archbishop Lefebvre as referring to a de facto known to us baptism of desire and invincible ignorance ? However this is being done.


So the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance can never ever be an exception to the dogma Cantate Domino on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.


Cantate Domino suggests all the non Catholic participants at Assisi 2011 are oriented to the fires of Hell, unless before death, they convert into the Catholic Church. There are no baptism of desire or invincible cases among them that we can know of. The dogma says that they are all, with no exceptions, going to Hell.


This simple truth however cannot be proclaimed by Bishop Fellay, and the SSPX bishops since they deny an ex cathedra dogma with an alleged de facto, explicit-to-us baptism of desire. All implicit salvation is explicit for the SSPX writers and members !


Otherwise, vaguely they oppose syncretism and indifferentism and proclaim the Catholic Church as the one, true Faith, the only religion of God and that non Catholics need to convert into the Catholic Church except for…


As for Fr. Leonard Feeney, nowhere in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 is it stated that he was excommunicated for heresy. Venerable Pope Pius XII in the Letter of the Holy Office published in the Denzinger  referred to ‘the dogma’ the ‘infallible teaching’. The dogma like Fr. Feeney affirms the ‘rigorist interpretation’ of outside the church no salvation.So the Letter supports Fr.Feeney on the dogma.


It was the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing who indicated that there were de facto known cases of persons saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire and so this contradicted Fr. Leonard Feeney and the dogma. The SSPX is repeating the same heresy.


It’s time the SSPX organizes a conference on the dogma outside the Church no salvation, alongwith the communities of Fr. Leonard Feeney, who have been granted canonical status, to understand who believes in what.


Extra ecclesiam nulla salus shows that a Catholic  can accept Vatican Council II according to Tradition, in accord with the dogma, and not according to the liberals, as a break with the dogma and Tradition.

VATICAN COUNCIL II AFFIRMS CANTATE DOMINO, COUNCIL OF FLORENCE ON EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS- Fr. Davide Carbonaro
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/07/vatican-council-ii-affirms-canta


Its a mortal sin to deny the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It is a sacrilege to receive the Eucharist in this condition- Fr. Gabrielle, priest of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/07/its-mortal-sin-to-deny-dogma-ext


THERE IS NO BAPTISM OF DESIRE THAT WE CAN KNOW OF- Fr.George Puthoor
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/06/there-is-no-baptism-of-desire-th


THERE IS NO DE FACTO BAPTISM OF DESIRE THAT WE KNOW OF-Fr. Masimilliano dei Gaspari F. I
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2010/05/there-is-no-de-facto-baptism-of-


EVERYBODY NEEDS THE EUCHARIST TO GO TO HEAVEN - Fr.Marcos Renacia, Augustinian Recollect priest
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/06/everybody-needs-eucharist-to-go-


MONS.IGNACIO BARREIRO CARAMBULA, INTERIM PRESIDENT,HUMAN LIFE INTERNATIONAL,USA SAYS "We don't know any case of the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance.Only Jesus can judge"
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2010/10/monsignacio-barreiro-carambula-i

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/07/sspx-unable-to-proclaim-that-all

ANSWER: I think I can understand the "silence" on the part of the SSPX, in view of their attempted "negotiations," etc. but also since it is not for us to judge souls.  However, I must admit that such a position as that ascribed to the SSPX with regards to this particular case, is deficient in that there is a difference between what might be acceptable for some pagan who is utterly unable to have any contact with the Church versus the same pagans acting "in the face of the Church," that is, with knowledge of it and its existence.  If any individual pagan were really of any such virtue as to merit an implicit "baptism of desire" it would be quite strange for said pagan to continue peaceably in their pagandom once having encountered the Church.
Of course, in the presently planned Assisi situation, they will not meet up with the Church but only with the Novus Ordo who therefore have absolutely nothing more of value to present to the pagans than their various pagan religions can present to each other.  As such, all to be present at that meeting can still plead ignorance, though of course it remains with God to judge the culpability of the ignorance in each individual case.
However, I see you as yet still in the thrall of Fr. Feeney's scholastic deceptions, which I have utterly exploded.  See in this series:

The Art of Scholastic Dishonesty Part One, Word Twisting To Change The Meaning
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/08Jun/jun30str.htm
The Bible, the Ancient Fathers, the Popes, the Councils, the Doctors, the Roman Theologians, the Canonists, the Saints, the Scholars, and the other great writers have been quoted out of context by various sects, cults, false religions, the Novus Ordo, and even some purporting to be traditional Catholics.  This serves as a prolog to the series on Feeneyism, which will begin with addressing the Treatise of Peter Dimond, Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation.

The Art of Scholastic Dishonesty Part Two, Ellipses can Eclipse Ecclesial Intent
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/08Jul/jul7str.htm
Addressing the Treatise of Peter Dimond, Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation:  Has Peter Dimond in his Treatise really proven Fr. Feeney's teachings?  A first cursory review of the various Fathers and other sources quoted, showing how most quotes really don’t even apply to the question for any of about six basic reasons, and certainly provide no proof of any ecclesiastical denial of Baptism of Blood or of Desire.  A misquote of an ancient Father is presented (the first of many).

The Art of Scholastic Dishonesty Part Three, Three who dare challenge Church Teaching
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/08Jul/jul14str.htm
Addressing the Treatise of Peter Dimond, Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation:  A parallel is established between Peter Abélard, Fr, Feeney, and Peter Dimond, and events of how Saint Bernard refuted Peter Abélard in his own day, and how the Treatise misquotes Fr. Laisney in attempting to brush aside the testimony of St. Bernard and the Council of Sens.

The Art of Scholastic Dishonesty Part Four, The Treatise is in Contempt of Context
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/08Jul/jul21str.htm
Addressing the Treatise of Peter Dimond, Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation:  Many more misquotes of various Fathers and other sources in the Treatise are exposed, most notably the Fr. William Jurgens quote.  Scriptures pertaining to the issue are explored and some cursory review of doctors and theologians produced to show misrepresentation on the part of the Treatise as to the nature of the question.  Direct concluding summary statements in the Treatise are addressed.

The Art of Scholastic Dishonesty Part Five, What About the What-Abouts?
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/08Jul/jul28str.htm
Addressing the Treatise of Peter Dimond, Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation:  Now begins the case FOR Baptism of Blood and of Desire, beginning with the Council of Trent.  Peter Dimond’s lack of a hold of Latin exposed, yet he presumes to comment on how the Latin should be translated.  The Treatise uses Trent inconsistently to try to explain Baptism of Blood and Desire away.  The Catechism of the Council of Trent has also been misquoted.

The Art of Scholastic Dishonesty Part Six, It's All or Nothing!
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/08Aug/aug4str.htm
Addressing the Treatise of Peter Dimond, Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation:  The teachings of the popes is discussed in great detail, not only directly but also as clarified by the great theologians and how the Treatise misquotes these same theologians.

The Art of Scholastic Dishonesty Part Seven, The Evidence is Overwhelming
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/08Sep/sep8str.htm
Addressing the Treatise of Peter Dimond, Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation:  Seven Doctors of the Church are consulted on the topic and all of them agree that Baptism of Blood and Desire are Church doctrines, and discuss them at length.  They have been misquoted in the Treatise so as to make it seem otherwise but these misquotes are exposed here.

The Art of Scholastic Dishonesty Part Eight, When all else fails, blame God!
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/08Sep/sep15str.htm
Addressing the Treatise of Peter Dimond, Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation:  All remaining “evidences” that the Treatise attempts to explain away are addressed in detail, most notably the case of Fr. Michael Du Bay, such practices of the Church as the burial of unbaptized catechumens in sacred ground.  Other lesser arguments are briefly mentioned as well.

The Art of Scholastic Dishonesty Part Nine, Bobbing for BOB
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/08Sep/sep29str.htm
Addressing the Treatise of Peter Dimond, Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation:  The Ancient Fathers are explored in considerable depth, at length, regarding, specifically, the doctrine of Baptism of Blood and the subject of the unbaptized martyrs.  Not a one of them has ever questioned the truth of Baptism of Blood as an established doctrine but all of them have affirmed that we should ask the prayers of the martyrs, even the unbaptized martyrs, rather than pray for them.

The Art of Scholastic Dishonesty Part Ten (a), Fathers Know Best what Desires God Desires
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/08Nov/nov1str.htm
Addressing the Treatise of Peter Dimond, Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation:  The Ancient Fathers are explored in considerable depth, at length, regarding, specifically, the doctrine of Baptism of Desire.  An attempt on the part of the Treatise to misquote St. Ambrose is exposed, as well as several other Fathers produced who have specifically discussed Baptism of Desire in an approving manner, including Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, Ursinius, and others.

The Art of Scholastic Dishonesty Part Ten (b), Desire to Know the Full Truth about Baptism of Desire
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/08Nov/nov3str.htm
Addressing the Treatise of Peter Dimond, Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation:  Continuing the topic of the Ancient Fathers regarding Baptism of Desire, specifically, a review of the unusual claims of Richard Ibranyi as to what St. Augustine taught is exposed for the fraud that it is as St. Augustine’s teaching on the subject is presented at length and shown to have been consistent and not vacillating as Richard Ibranyi and Peter Dimond would have us think.  Also examined at length are the teachings of St. John Chrysostom and Gregory Nazianzen (two more Doctors of the Church in addition to the seven above) who clearly do believe in Baptism of Desire even while denouncing the abuse of those who presume upon them for salvation as an alternative to baptism and the Christian life and sacrifice.

The Art of Scholastic Dishonesty Part Eleven (a), Conspiracy of a Cult
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/08Dec/dec3str.htm
Addressing the Treatise of Peter Dimond, Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation:  The history of Fr. Feeney’s organization, from the viewpoint of the Dimond brothers as presented in the Treatise, as well as in general, is introduced, showing how Fr. Feeney once believed in Baptism of Blood and Desire.  Fakhri Maluf’s article Sentimental Theology and Raymond Karam’s article Reply to a Liberal are shown to contain the seeds of what is to come, despite later denials that Baptism of Blood or Desire were ever denied prior to the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office.  The followers of Fr. Feeney and Feeney himself show themselves to be acting disingenuously.  Also explores Fr. Feeney’s refusal to transfer to Holy Cross and the runaround given by his associates as to what jurisdiction the St. Benedict’s Center was under.

The Art of Scholastic Dishonesty Part Eleven (b), The Church vs. Feeneyism
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/08Dec/dec10str.htm
Addressing the Treatise of Peter Dimond, Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation:  The Letter of the Holy Office, Suprema haec sacra, also called the "Marchetti-Selvaggiani letter," is reviewed in extreme detail, and analyzed both in terms of how Fr. Feeney and his cohorts saw it at the time as well as what take Peter Dimond has on it in the Treatise.  The Treatise misquotes Msgr. Clifford Fenton regarding the authority of the Letter and here that misquote is exposed.

The Art of Scholastic Dishonesty Part Twelve (a), Theologians Against Feeneyism and the Treatise
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/feb3str.htm
Addressing the Treatise of Peter Dimond, Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation:  The writings of the 25 Roman theologians referenced by Fr. Cekada (or at least the five who wrote in English) are quoted at length to show the full richness of the Church’s teaching on the subject, not only the ancient and papal and council and doctoral sources, but the final synthesis of how the Church understands the doctrines.

The Art of Scholastic Dishonesty Part Twelve (b), The Catechism Against Feeneyism and the Treatise
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/feb10str.htm
Addressing the Treatise of Peter Dimond, Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation:  Numerous Catechisms from all places and times teach the Catholic doctrines of Baptism of Blood and Desire, but only some of the simplest level Catechisms (e. g. Baltimore #1) omit them.

The Art of Scholastic Dishonesty Part Twelve (c), Closing Arguments Against Feeneyism and the Treatise
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/feb17str.htm
Addressing the Treatise of Peter Dimond, Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation:  All arguments and misquotations of Peter Dimond and the others which have been exposed in previous installments are itemized (it is quite a list!), and responses from Peter Dimond to my prior installments presented.  With this I am done with the Dimonds.

The Art of Scholastic Dishonesty Series Interlude Part One, Genesis of the Polemics Against Feeneyism
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/09May/may11str.htm
This is sequence of events that led up to my production of this Feeneyism series.  Also there has been some correspondence, some questions about topics brought up in the series and my responses to them.  Is Feeneyism a heresy?

The Art of Scholastic Dishonesty Series interlude Part Two, The Slippery Slope to Sophistry
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/09May/may18str.htm
The question is a good one, worthy of an answer.  Is Baptism of Blood and/or Baptism of Desire some sort of “precedent” for the ecumenism of Vatican II?  Are those teachings where the Vatican II ecumenism came from?  This also pertains to the topic of my thesis as how Vatican II and “subsists in” was actually meant to be interpreted.

The Art of Scholastic Dishonesty Series Interlude Part Three, Dead or Alive, Anonymous Apostates Are Known to God
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/09May/may25str.htm
More explanation of the question about Baptism of Blood and Desire as distinct from Vatican II ecumenism, exploring the nature of how Grace is applied to souls. Also explores the Diabology of Karl Rahner. This also continues to pertain to the topic of my thesis as how Vatican II and “subsists in” was actually meant to be interpreted.

The Art of Scholastic Dishonesty Part Thirteen, Begin at the Beginning
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/09Jul/jul6str.htm
Fr. Feeney’s book Bread of Life is examined in detail, which is far more careful and slippery than Peter Dimond’s Treatise ever was.  How Trent was misrepresented as though justification is practically the opposite of salvation.

The Art of Scholastic Dishonesty Part Fourteen (a), Nascent Feeney Part One
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/09Sep/sep7str.htm
Reply to Reply To A Liberal, first part introduces the article of Raymond Karam, and discusses its introduction and first chapter and part of its second in detail, exploring the one misquote of Bainvel that Raymond had identified.

The Art of Scholastic Dishonesty Part Fourteen (b), Nascent Feeney Part Two
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/09Sep/sep14str.htm
Reply to Reply To A Liberal, second part continues the article of Raymond Karam, and discusses the remainder of the second chapter in detail, exploring the topics of ignorance and culpability.

The Art of Scholastic Dishonesty Part Fourteen (c), Nascent Feeney Part Three
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/09Sep/sep21str.htm
Reply to Reply To A Liberal, third part concludes the article of Raymond Karam, and discusses its third chapter and conclusion in detail, showing the hints of the denial of Baptism of Desire that some Feeney followers pretend only came later on, and also posing the Feeney dilemma of whether God punishes the innocent, or else if all who err, even in good faith, are necessarily of bad will.

The Art of Scholastic Dishonesty Part Fifteen, They Fought the Bad Fight
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/10Jan/jan21str.htm
The writings of Catherine Goddard Clarke and Orestes Brownson are reviewed to show that Catherine can produce no new or different sources than have already been examined in previous installments, and that Orestes Brownson was never an advocate of Fr. Feeney’s position.  The story and writings of Thomas Mary Sennot and those who joined the Vatican with him are reviewed and shown to be in no way any affirmation of Fr. Feeney’s peculiar doctrines.

Even looking at the "references" you gave, your attempt to ascribe Fr. Feeney's position to various other clergy falls flat on its face.  All most of your references show is that no individuals have been identified by the Church as having been saved through implicit Baptism of Desire.  But of course the Church would not know who, for only God would know that sort of thing.
For example in the second one I note that "Fr. Gabrielle said that there can be those saved through Jesus and the Church and who may not be members of the Church. It needs to be clarified here that only God knows which non Catholics are saved through Jesus and the Church. So this does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus." So clearly he does not see any conflict between the dogma and persons being saved who were never part of the Church.
And then again, also, regarding Ft. Puthoor, the blog states (in its last paragraph) thet "The sedevacantists [of Most Holy Family Monastery, NY] reject the baptism of desire. This is heresy."  That hardly qualifies as any affirmation for Fr. Feeney's unique interpretations.
Again, in the next, I see it says, "Fr. Masimilliano, an Italian priest of the religious community Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, observed that there is no case of baptism of desire that one can judge, nor can one say that any one in particular has genuine invincible ignorance.”It is always a probability”, he observed. It is a probability, a possibility."  Obviously there is in that no denial of implicit Baptism of Desire but its admission as a probability or at the very least a possibility.
In the next, Fr. Marcos Renacia states that "De jure, in principle, there could be the possibility of someone saved who has not received this Sacrament."
It is one thing to know as a doctrine that the existence of implicit Baptism of Desire is necessarily true, which the Church yea verily affirms and has always affirmed.  But it is quite another to claim to know that such a situation would apply to any specific identified soul in question.  All sources have affirmed the doctrine of implicit Baptism of Desire while denying any knowledge of anyone who specifically and by name can be identified as a beneficiary of such a mercy on the part of God.



---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Dear Griff Ruby,
I have read three of the links you have sent me.
Are you assuming that the Most Holy Family Monastery is referring to an explicit known in the present times baptism of desire ? Hence they reject it.
Is the baptism of desire also explicit and known in the present times for you too and so it contradicts Cantate Domino ?
In Christ
Lionel



SEDEVACANTISTS REJECT COUNCIL OF TRENT BAPTISM OF DESIRE AND ASSUME IT IS NOT HYPOTHETICAL

Council of Trent does not say if the Baptism of Desire is de facto or de jure known to us.

First they wrote off the baptism of desire of Trent, then they assume it is real and not hypothetical for us, and then, anyone who affirms the baptism of desire is called a heretic.

For centuries the Church knew that the baptism of desire was not known to us in particular cases it was accepted in principle only. It could only be accepted in principle; it was not repeatable like the baptism of water. We could not administer the baptism of desire and so it did not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. (Cantate Domino, Council of Trent 1441).

The Most Holy Family Monastery, New York sedevacantists for whom a defacto-known- to- us- in- the- present- times- baptism of desire is central to their media apostolate, accuse Catholics of being in heresy since they affirm the baptism of desire. The sedevacantists conclude this must contradict the dogma Cantate Domino.

It is true to reject an ex cathedra dogma is a mortal sin and there are Catholics who have rejected the dogma Cantate Domino, extra ecclesiam nulla salus either through ignorance or misinformation or fear of persecution. So the Dimond brothers are correct on this aspect of the truth.

However when one affirms the baptism of desire, it is not a rejection of Cantate Domino, since the baptism of desire is always a concept for us. It is hypothetical. It can only be de facto for God. We do not know a single case in the present times or in the past. No one says there were four baptism of desire cases in Rome last month, or three in New York last year.

Since we do not know of a single case how can it contradict the dogma which says everyone must be an explicit member of the Catholic Church for salvation?

The baptism of desire and invincible ignorance cases are implicit and so we do not know any such person saved implicitly.

The Council of Trent mentions the baptism of desire but does not claim that it is defacto, explicitly known to us as the MHFM would imply, infer and then assume.

So Peter and Michael Dimond reject the Council of Trent on the baptism of desire while all over their website they are emphasizing Catholic Tradition. They then assume the baptism of desire is explicitly known to us and then conclude that there are so many Catholics who are in heresy.

1) The MHFM do not make the explicit-implicit, defacto-dejure, distinction.

2) They assume Vatican Council II on the issue of extra ecclesiam nulla salus contradicts Cantate Domino since for them invincible ignorance (Lumen Gentium 16) is de facto and not in the de jure category.

This was the error made by Cardinal Richard Cushing, Archbishop of Boston along with the Jesuits there. It was picked up by the secular media and supported by dissenters. The sedevacantists have also, perhaps, unknowingly, made the same false assumption. They are using the false propaganda.

The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus has not been retracted by the Vatican. There is no Church document which makes this claim.

Since the baptism of desire is not de facto known to us there is no text in Vatican Council II which contradicts Cantate Domino.

Fr.Leonard Feeney held the same position as Cantate Domino so how could be excommunicated for heresy as the secular propaganda continues.

Since there is no baptism of desire that we know of Fr.Leonard Feeney was correct in saying there is no baptism of desire (that we know of).

The problem still exists of Catholics denying Cantate Domino by claiming that Vatican Council II or the Fr.Leonard Feeney Case has changed this teaching.When done intentionally this is a sin.

There are others who interpret the Catechism as a break from Tradition and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. When done intentionally it is a rejection of the dogma and heresy.

A Catholic who has been informed many times and still rejects Cantate Domino on his website or on a public forum is in public mortal sin. A person in public mortal sin is not to receive the Eucharist until he has received absolution at the Confessional and removed the public scandal.

One cannot for example promote abortion or have an abortion because of financial or other worldly interests. One cannot commit a mortal sin, e.g deny an ex cathedra dogma, to protect ones life style, job, reputation or other worldly interests.

According to Veritatis Splendor a mortal sin is a mortal sin and the external act indicates the internal intention. This is very different from some of the misinterpretations of mortal sin based on the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

According to Canon Law a priest in mortal sin is not to offer Mass in that condition. Similarly a lay man in public mortal sin should not commit a sacrilege.

COUNCIL OF TRENT DOES NOT SAY IF THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS DEFACTO OR DE JURE KNOWN TO US

The Council of Trent mentions the baptism of desire but does not say if it is de facto or de jure known to us. Just about everyone, from the Most Holy Family Monastery to the Urbaniana, Angelicum, Gregorian and other Pontifical Universities in Rome assume, its is de facto known to us in the present times.

By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

Canon IV-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema."-Council of Trent
American sedevacantists imply the Baptism of desire is de facto known to us in the present times.

Those who believe in this latter idea (that baptism of desire can apply to Jews or Muslims, etc.) would have to immediately abandon it upon seeing any of the infallible definitions on Outside the Church There is No Salvation. If not, they are definitely heretics who have been automatically excommunicated from the Church. One could not reasonably believe that members of non-Catholic religions being saved is compatible with Outside the Church There is No Salvation.- page 167, The Dogma that there is No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church and without the Catholic Faith and refuting baptism of desire from the website of the Most Holy Family Monastery,NY

WHAT IS THE CREDIBILITY OF URBANIANA PONTIFICAL UNIVERSITY, ROME ?

The Rector and professors at the Urbaniana Pontifical University, Rome are teaching the same error as the sedevacantists Most Holy Family Monastery (MHFM), USA. They both imply that those saved with the baptism of desire are de facto known to us in the present times so it contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

The sedevancantists reject the baptism of desire completely. The MHFM believes it’s an exception to Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441, on extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Sandra Mazzolini a professor at Urbaniana rejects Cantate Domino as it was interpreted for centuries. She also believes that those saved with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance are known to us in the present times. So it contradicts the dogma Cantate Domino.

The sedevacantists affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Urbaniana denies it. They both wrongly assume that cases of the baptism of desire are as real as the baptism of water.

They both believe that the dogma is opposed by a baptism of desire which is defacto, real and known to us personally .They are united in the error here.

Yet a student at Urbaniana University could reason out that the baptism of desire is only known to God. It is de facto for God only. We do not know a single case. We can only accept it in principle (de jure).It is always hypothetical, a concept for us.

How can what is hypothetical for us contradict Cantate Domino on everyone explicitly needing to be a formal member of the Catholic Church for salvation?

Sandra Mazzolini is promoting her book in Italian in which she implies non Catholics are de facto saved with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance. These cases it is implied are known to us in the present times. So she assumes this contradicts the ‘rigorist interpretation’ of the centuries-old dogma.

She offers a course for students at the Urbaniana which teaches that the dogma extra eccleisam nulla salus has ‘developed’. This claim is made in the Urbaniana University Handbook (Kalendarium).

It has ‘developed’ for her in Vatican Council II as it has for the Urbaniana Rector, since Vatican Council II says non Catholics could be saved in invincible ignorance with a good conscience, by the Word of God, in partial communion with the Church. All these examples according to Urbaniana, refer to de facto cases known in the present time.

Yet it is common sense that we do not personally know any of these cases. They are hypothetical for us. Something we can only accept in principle, so how can they contradict Cantate Domino?

Is this what is being taught to Catholic students and seminarians at this Pontifical University approved by the Congregation for Catholic Education? Yes.

The university assumes there is text in Vatican Council II which contradicts the dogma. There is no text.

The Catholic Church has not retracted the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus . For centuries the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance were known and it was not an issue. It was not made into a new doctrine to change, reject or ‘develop’ extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

The dogma is in accord with Ad Genets 7, Catechism of the Catholic Church N.845, 846.

Dogmas and doctrines are being changed in Pontifical Universities - in this case, with a common sense error.

THE GREAT BAPTISM OF DESIRE HOAX : FROM THE MOST HOLY FAMILY MONASTERY, CATHOLIC ANSWERS,USCCB, PONTIFICAL UNIVERSITIES AND SEMINARIES TO NUMEROUS OTHERS TODAY

I can infer that the baptism of desire is unknown to us since, it is only accepted in principle and is never defacto known in the present times in particular cases.

1. Only Jesus knows who is saved with the Baptism of desire.

2. We do not personally know any case in the past, present or future. We cannot say we know someone saved with the baptism of desire. None of us knows any person.

3. Since the baptism of desire is a concept, something accepted in principle, it cannot be real and repeatable like the baptism of water.

4. Since we can only accept it in principle(de jure)it does not conflict with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the Church there is no salvation).The dogma Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441 indicates all non Catholics need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation. There are no exceptions since the baptism of desire or blood cannot be administered.

5. So everyone with no exception needs the baptism of water with Catholic Faith to go to Heaven and avoid Hell. If there is anyone saved with the baptism of desire it will be known to God only.

6. The Catholic Church has not retracted the dogma outside the church there is no salvation (Cantate Domino, Bull Unam Sanctam, Fourth Lateran Council) which is in accord with Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II ( all need baptism for salvation), Catechism of the Catholic Church 846( the Church is like a door in which all enter), 845 (The Church is like the only Ark of Noah that saves in the Flood and God wants all to be united in the Catholic Church), Dominus Iesus 20 etc.

7. So when the sedevacantists Most Holy Family Monastery (MHFM) claim that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma Cantate Domino it is irrational. For them the baptism of desire is not just a concept but a de facto, visible reality like the baptism of water. This is a hoax.

8. Similarly when the liberals who oppose the MHFM say Lumen Gentium 16 (on invincible ignorance) contradicts the dogma it is irrational. They (USCCB, Notification on Fr. Peter Phan etc) imply that we know cases in the present times saved in invincible ignorance. So for them it contradicts the dogma Cantate Domino. Yet we know that those saved in invincible ignorance can only be a concept, a principle we accept. It’s a hoax (by Catholic Answers, EWTN etc) to suggest that those saved in invincible ignorance, unknown to us, contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II.

WILL GERRY MATATICS LEAVE SEDEVACANTISM ?

Gerry Matatics has communicated to us that he is in full agreement on sedevacantism and the salvation dogma. That is to say, Gerry holds the sedevacantist position and also agrees that is the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church that the Catholic Faith and the Sacrament of Baptism are absolutely necessary for salvation with no exceptions for “baptism of desire”- from the website of the Most Holy Family Monastery.
I Lionel Andrades wish to communicate to all that I too am ‘in full agreement with the salvation dogma’. I agree to the ‘infallible teaching of the Catholic Church that Catholic Faith and the Sacrament of Baptism are absolutely necessary for salvation’, and there are no ‘ exceptions for ’ a de facto, known to us in the present times, “baptism of desire”.

However I am a member of the Catholic Church,faithful to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI and his predecessor popes and I am not a sedevacantist

In 2005 apologist Gerry Matatics , Founder and President, Biblical Foundations International did not know there was an alternative.

Now I am saying that the baptism of desire in its very nature is not an exception to the dogma, since it cannot be defacto known to us ever ; we do not know anyone on earth saved with the baptism of desire ,invincible ignorance etc.

De facto every adult with no exception needs to enter the Catholic Church with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation.

De jure in principle, as a possibility known only to God, a non Catholic can be saved with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance in the manner God wants.We do not know any de facto cases. So it does not contradict the dogma Cantate Domino.

Peter and Michael Dimond call people heretics: for the MHFM baptism of desire is de facto knowable and contradicts Cantate Domino

Commonsense says the baptism of desire in its nature is always known only in principle, de jure, so how can it contradict Pope John Paul II, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and numerous others charged as heretics and apostates ?

Peter and Michael Dimond, sedevacantists of the Most Holy Family Monastery, NY are calling people heretics on their website. Since they believe that the baptism of desire is de facto and known personally and so contradicts Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, the ex cathedra dogma on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

The baptism of desire is not like the baptism of water which is real, de facto, tangible, visible and repeatable. Everybody needs it for salvation and there are no exceptions. The baptism of desire is not an exception, to everybody needing the baptism of water. Since the baptism of desire is known only to God .It is not de facto and real for us.


The baptism of desire does not contradict the dogma as the MHFM state in their book on this subject and in comments all over their website.

Those who believe in this latter idea (that baptism of desire can apply to Jews or Muslims, etc.) would have to immediately abandon it upon seeing any of the infallible definitions on Outside the Church There is No Salvation. If not, they are definitely heretics who have been automatically excommunicated from the Church. One could not reasonably believe that members of non-Catholic religions being saved is compatible with Outside the Church There is No Salvation.- page 167, The Dogma that there is No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church and without the Catholic Faith and refuting baptism of desire
They have been informed. These posts have been sent to them. If they persist would it not be calumny and scandal? A mortal sin?

SEDEVACANTISTS SLIP ON BOD UNDERSTANDING AND CRITICIZE POPE JOHN PAUL II

It’s a common error on the website of Peter and Michael Dimond. They assume that the Baptism of desire is de facto known to us in the present times. They make this error and criticize the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX). Here they assume that Pope John Paul II was wrong.

Pope John Paul II was correct there are those saved explicitly and others implicitly through Jesus and the Church.

Subject: Hi-EWTN exposed?

Hi,

Who are you ? How can you say all of these things about the church and the Pope and EWTN? It is all so shocking? Why are you saying these things?

Judy

MHFM: … Here’s just one heresy from … John Paul II. This statement denies defined Catholic dogma. Again, this is just one of many:

John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio (#10), Dec. 7, 1990: “The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church.”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, dogmatic Athanasian Creed, 1439: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity… But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence ,dogmatic Athanasian Creed is saying that everyone with no exception needs to be an explicit member of the Church to go to Heaven.

Pope John Paul too is saying that the ‘universality of salvation is granted to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church’. This is the same message as the Council of Florence.
Those saved explicitly refer to de facto cases that we can know of. Those saved implicitly refer to de jure cases that we can only accept in principle and can only know as a concept.

Since one is de facto and the other de jure it does not contradict the Principle on Non Contradiction.

So there is no contradiction between the statements of Pope John Paul II and Pope Eugene IV.

MHFM SLIPS ON BOD DEFINITION AND CRITICIZES SSPX

The Most Holy Family Monastery(MHFM) advises a young man to avoid the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) since they allege that the SSPX like the Catholic Church rejects the dogma Cantate Domino, Council of Florence on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

The young man must realize that it is the MHFM which is making an error with the baptism of desire (BOD). In its nature BOD is always unknown defacto to us, it can never be known in reality to us humans, it must be always accepted in principle ( dejure) only. It is unlike the baptism of water which is de facto and repeatable, real and visible.

So if BOD is not defacto known to it does not contradict the dogma as the sedevacantists MHFM state on their website critical of the SSPX.

SSPX
Hello, I am a 22 year old who recently started going to the TLM mass at the SSPX. I have stumbled across your videos and would like to ask you a few questions…
2.) What are your main problems with the SSPX?...
Thank you
Brian

MHFM:… 2. The SSPX believes in salvation outside the Church… The members of the SSPX also demonstrate a schismatic mentality by regarding Benedict XVI and his “hierarchy” as valid, but obstinately operating independently of them. All of that is explained in this file: The Society of St. Pius X [Link to Section]. Here are two quick examples of blatant heresy:

Fr. Schmidberger, Time Bombs of the Second Vatican Council, Angelus Press [SSPX], p. 10: “Ladies and gentlemen, it is clear that the followers of other religions can be saved under certain conditions, that is to say, if they are in invincible error.”

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, Angelus Press [SSPX], p. 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion.”-- E-Exchanges on the Catholic Church and other issues, Most Holy Family Monastery
Note : the followers of other religions ‘in certain circumstances’ (Letter of the Holy Office 1949) and known only to God can be saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance. This is a probability, we accept this in principle. We do not know any such case on earth. So it does not contradict the dogma Cantate Domino or Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II.

Pope John Paul II also refers to those saved implicitly (baptism of desire, invincible ignorance etc), as taught in Mystici Corporis, Council of Trent, Vatican Council II etc. They also are saved.

We must remember that those saved implicitly can only be known to God. They can never de facto known to us as we know the baptism of water. They can never be real and known and so they do not contradict the Council of Florence. Everyone explicitly needs to enter the Church for salvation and there are no known exceptions on earth. If there are any exceptions (invincible ignorance etc) it will be known only to God.

When Archbishop Lefebvre said ‘Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.) he was referring to a probability known to God and which in its very nature is always de jure and never de facto known to us. So Archbishop Lefebvre was not denying or contradicting the dogma Cantate Domino, Council of Florence on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

The MHFM,Peter and Michael Dimond, make this common error since they assume that BOD is as visible and real as the baptism of water and so it contradicts the dogma outside the church there is no salvation.

Since they consider BOD as real and known to us, they reject BOD. This is a rejection of a teaching of the Council of Trent and is heresy.

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

Novus Ordo priest affirms rigorist interpretation of dogma and also Vatican Council II

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THERE IS NO BAPTISM OF DESIRE THAT WE CAN KNOW OF- Fr.George Puthoor

A Catholic priest in Rome who offers Mass in Italian affirms Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, on extra ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the church there is no salvation) pointing out that there is no baptism of desire that we can personally know of.

A Rossiminian priest from South India Fr.George Puthoor said that there is no baptism of desire that we can know of.

He was speaking with me at the Basilica Santi Ambrogio e Carlo, Via del Corso, Rome where he was to offer Holy Mass in Italian at 12 p.m on Trinity Sunday.He gave me permission to quote him.

Since the cases of non-Catholic saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance are de facto unknown to us and can only be accepted in principle it does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus he observed.

If there is no case of the baptism of desire or implicit faith that we know of then Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma Cantate Domino.

The secular media hype and those of the liberals have claimed that Lumen Gentium 16, Vatican Council II has changed church teaching with refrence to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Their claim is that every one does not have to enter the Church since there could be non Catholics saved with invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire.This is the claim of Wikipedia on the Internet, Catholic Answers and the Pontifical Universities and seminaries in Rome and abroad.They could quote Pope John Paul II on ‘silent apostasy’ in the Church, as if, they are not a part of it.

So when EWTN says everyone does not have to enter the Church to avoid Hell it is irrational. Since EWTN implies the baptism of desire is de facto known to us.

There is also no Magisterial text to support this position.

Since we do not know any case of a person saved in invincible ignorance Fr. George Puthoor is getting rid of another modernist sacred cow- the lie about a priest, Leonard Feeney.

When Fr.Leonard Feeney said that there is no baptism of desire (that we know of) he was correct. There is no de facto baptism of desire that we can know of because of the very nature of baptism of desire. It is de facto only for God and never de facto known to us.

Fr.Leonard Feeney taught: everyone needed the baptism of water (given to adults with Catholic Faith) for salvation – and there were no exceptions, de facto.

He was affirming Cantate Domino. So how could he be excommunicated for heresy?

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 refers to ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible’ teaching. The dogma Cantate Domino indicates all Jews in Boston ( and other non Catholics) need to convert into the Catholic Church to avoid Hell.

With Vatican Council II and Fr.Leonard Feeney ‘out of the way’ we are back to the centuries-old interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

The centuries old teaching of the popes and saints is affirmed by the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church 846(Outside the Church no Salvation) says all people need to enter the Church as ‘through a door’. This does not conflict with CCC846 also saying all those who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church i.e. there are those 1) saved explicitly with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water and there are those saved 2) implicitly through the baptism of desire etc. and which is known only to God.

Unlike these Catholic priests, the American sedevacantists Most Holy Family Monastery, NY, assume that the baptism of desire is known to us in the present times. They seem unaware that it can only be accepted in principle. It can only be a concept for us and real for God. So it does not contradict Cantate Domino. The sedevacantists reject the baptism of desire. This is heresy. They could be correct though, in saying that Catholic clergy, educational institutions and websites are in heresy and general apostasy on the issue of outside the church there is no salvation. .Since they deny Cantate Domino because they believe, like the sedevacantists, in a de facto baptism of deny known to us personally.

MORE LIBERAL NOVUS ORDO PRIESTS ARE ACCEPTING EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS

They see through the media deception and futile controversies when they realize that the baptism of desire can only be accepted in principle and never known de facto.

I was talking to a visiting priest a few days back, at a small church. He agreed that the baptism of desire was only known to God. We did not know any case.

We then agreed that in Vatican Council II all the objections against the dogma Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, extra ecclesiam nulla salus, were known only to God. Those in invincible ignorance (Lumen Gentium 16) were known only to God. Those saved by the Word of God were unknown to us.

The baptism of desire was dejure, accepted only in principle, since it can never be de facto for us, Fr. Leonard Feeney was correct. There is no baptism of desire or blood that we in general can know of. If someone really is a martyr only God can judge. We cannot judge. When the Church declares someone a martyr we accept it.

So with the Fr. Leonard Feeney and Vatican Council II objections removed, we are left with the centuries- old interpretation of extra eccleisam nulla salus. We come to this conclusion based on reason. This is not a new theology.

For centuries there was no controversy over baptism of desire or invincible ignorance. Since they were always understood to be implicit and did not contradict the dogma which called for explicit baptism of water, for all without exceptions.

Then the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 issued to the Archbishop of Boston by Pope Pius XII mentions ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible’ teaching. That dogma was Cantate Domino, one of three ex cathedra definitions on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

The text of Cantate Domino indicates all Jews and other non Catholic in Boston need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell. This was exactly what Fr.Leonard Feeney taught. So how could he be excommunicated for heresy? The Letter supported him on doctrine. This is contrary to the secular media propaganda.

The message of the Letter and the dogma is the same as Ad Gentes 7, Catechism of the Catholic Church 846, Dominus Iesus 20. This is Vatican Council II and Magisterial documents in accord with Cantate Domino. This has been the positive aspect of this issue.

On what seemed the negative aspect, but is not, Lumen Gentium 16 refers to invincible ignorance which does not contradict the dogma since it is not explicitly known to us.Implicit case are hidden from us.

So rationally we are back to extra ecclesiam nulla salus which the Church has not retracted in any Magisterial document. The Catechism of the Catholic Church 846 can be interpreted in accord with the dogma. CCC 846 on Outside the Church No Salvation says all need to enter the Church as through a door. This was how the Church Fathers described extra ecclesiam nulla salus. CCC’s 846’s reference to those saved implicitly through Jesus and the Church does not contradict the dogma, since we do not know a single person, saved through Jesus and the Church.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus called the Catholic Church “…my church…” He told St. Peter that it would prevail against Satan and be there for all time. (1)

Lionel Andrades
Catholic layman
E-mail:
Blog: http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/
YouTube: http://it.youtube.com/LionelAndrades

1.


VATICAN COUNCIL II AFFIRMS THE DOGMA

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


CATECHISM AFFIRMS DOGMA

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:


Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.-Catechism of the Catholic Church 846 (Note : ‘which men through Baptism as through a door’ was a term used by the Church Fathers for the rigorist interpretation of outside the church there is no salvation).

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

DOMINUS IESUS AND THE DOGMA

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

_________________________________________

Ordinary Magisterium

Pope Pelagius II (A.D. 578 – 590): “Consider the fact that whoever has not been in the peace and unity of the Church cannot have the Lord. …Although given over to flames and fires, they burn, or, thrown to wild beasts, they lay down their lives, there will not be (for them) that crown of faith but the punishment of faithlessness. …Such a one can be slain, he cannot be crowned. …[If] slain outside the Church, he cannot attain the rewards of the Church.” (Denzinger 246-247)

Pope Saint Gregory the Great (A.D. 590 – 604): “Now the holy Church universal proclaims that God cannot be truly worshipped saving within herself, asserting that all they that are without her shall never be saved.” (Moralia )

Pope Innocent III (A.D. 1198 – 1216): “With our hearts we believe and with our lips we confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved.” (Denzinger 423)

Pope Leo XII (A.D. 1823 – 1829): “We profess that there is no salvation outside the Church. …For the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. With reference to those words Augustine says: `If any man be outside the Church he will be excluded from the number of sons, and will not have God for Father since he has not the Church for mother.’” (Encyclical, Ubi Primum )

Pope Gregory XVI (A.D. 1831 – 1846): “It is not possible to worship God truly except in Her; all who are outside Her will not be saved.” (Encyclical, Summo Jugiter )

Pope Pius IX (A.D. 1846 – 1878): “It must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood.” (Denzinger 1647)

Pope Leo XIII (A.D. 1878 – 1903): “This is our last lesson to you; receive it, engrave it in your minds, all of you: by God’s commandment salvation is to be found nowhere but in the Church.” (Encyclical, Annum Ingressi Sumus )

“He scatters and gathers not who gathers not with the Church and with Jesus Christ, and all who fight not jointly with Him and with the Church are in very truth contending against God.” (Encyclical, Sapientiae Christianae )

Pope Saint Pius X (A.D. 1903 – 1914): “It is our duty to recall to everyone great and small, as the Holy Pontiff Gregory did in ages past, the absolute necessity which is ours, to have recourse to this Church to effect our eternal salvation.” (Encyclical, Jucunda Sane )

Pope Benedict XV (A.D. 1914 – 1922): “Such is the nature of the Catholic faith that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole, or as a whole rejected: This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.” (Encyclical, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum )

Pope Pius XI (A.D. 1922 – 1939): “The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation….Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.” (Encyclical, Mortalium Animos )

Pope Pius XII (A.D. 1939 – 1958): “By divine mandate the interpreter and guardian of the Scriptures, and the depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation: She alone, by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit, is the source of truth.” (Allocution to the Gregorian, October 17, 1953)

Extraordinary Magisterium

Then, as though to set this constant teaching of the Fathers, Doctors and Popes “in concrete,” so to speak, we have the following definitions from the Solemn Magisterium of the Church:

Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215): “One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful outside which no one at all is saved…”

Pope Boniface VIII in his Papal Bull Unam Sanctam (A.D. 1302): “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 Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (A.D. 1438 – 1445): “[The most Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart `into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt. 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” -from the website Catholicism.org

____________________________________________________

Answer
I am not going to attempt to respond to your lengthy post here in detail as much of what you express shows that more needs to be known about these issues before one can be in a position to ascertain the correctness (or incorrectness) of the various opinions and "positions" quoted therein.
In fact, it would behoove you to become familiar with the entire series (such as I have so far) in order to know of what the Church really has taught (in detail) about this.  When you can show me that you are familiar with all of my online installments, and then if you still have some questions or comments, then (and only then) come back and talk to me about all this.
The only other thing that I will throw in now (in response to one theme I see in all of  your questions) seems to be some idea that Fr. Feeney merely stated that we (living Church members in this life) have no specific and certain knowledge regarding the fate of any particular soul.  But in fact he said a great deal more, and (at least indirectly) implied that in fact we DO know the fate of many particular souls, since in his view of things, any soul who did not get baptized in water, regardless of why he or she didn't, is necessarily damned.  It does not do to soft-pedal his "They cannot be saved" into some nicely humble (and even seemingly acceptable) "We don't know" as that misrepresents Fr. Feeney's own position and writings.
However, in point of fact, though there is no "canonization" process for the unbaptized (other than unbaptized martyrs), there are souls that the Church has felt to be sufficiently "safe" to bury in sacred ground despite not being baptized in water, namely catechumens who were known to be as such "in good standing" as provided for in the Code of Canon Law (1917 Code), Canon 1239 Code: "§ 1. Those who die without baptism are not to be accorded ecclesiastical burial. § 2. Catechumens who through no fault of their own die without baptism are to be reckoned as baptized. § 3. All baptized are to be given ecclesiastical burial unless they are expressly deprived of same by law."  Furthermore, St. Ambrose felt quite certain that Emperor Valentinian received the grace of Baptism, though his death which occurred before any chance to be baptized by him was not to be counted as a martyrdom.  I believe his death is not counted as a martyrdom since his murder was motivated by political reasons utterly unrelated to his decision to be baptized into the Christian Faith and Church.
Obviously, such a standard would not apply to those for whom an implicit Baptism of Desire would have been their only chance, since unlike catechumens they have had no contact with the Church through no fault of their own (and God alone, along with the Saints and Angels in Heaven, would know who that is).  In affirming the doctrine of implicit Baptism of Desire, the Church cannot mean merely some vaguely remote hypothesis that may well apply to no one at all whatsoever throughout all of human history.  Clearly it is intended to be taught that there do in fact exist some number (greater than zero) of such souls, even though their number and identities cannot be even guessed at by anyone in this life, beyond the bare fact that the number IS greater than zero.