The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 referred to 'the dogma', the infallible teaching'. The dogma Cantate Domino, Council of Florence tells us that every one needs to be a visible member of the Church. The dogma does not mention explicit baptism of desire or invincible ignorance. So how could Fr. Feeney be in error?
Cantate Domino, Council of Florence could also be considered a censure of the Archbishop of Boston to whom the Letter of the Holy Office was sent. Since, ‘the dogma’ does not mention like the Archbishop, those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. The baptism of desire etc is always implicit it does not contradict the centuries- old interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They are not exceptions. So how could Fr. Leonard Feeney be in error for saying everybody needs to be a visible member of the Church and there are no exceptions? This is what the dogma states as do the popes, Church Fathers and saints.
There is no Church document which says invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are defacto known to us in personal cases. Neither does any Magisterial text claim that these are ‘exceptions’ to the dogma.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 mentions those who can be saved ‘in certain circumstances’ with the baptism of desire. It does not say that this contradicts ‘the dogma’ or ‘the infallible teaching’ to which the Letter also refers.
If the baptism of desire was not dejure, accepted only in principle, and if it was de facto and known to us, in personal cases then the Letter of the Holy Office would contradict itself.This is what EWTN implies with its explicit, exceptions.
De facto every non Catholic needs to enter the Church for salvation and there are no exceptions.( LG 14, AG 7, Cantate Domino, Dominus Iesus 20, CCC 845, 846 etc).
Since invincible ignorance is implicit, we accept it only in principle (de jure). It is not an exception to the dogma.It is a possibility known to God but not an exception to the dogma.
The dejure-defacto distinction is there already in the Magisterial texts e.g. Letter of the Holy Office, Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7, Lumen Gentium 14), Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257,846 etc.
LG 16 (invincible ignorance) is not the ordinary means of salvation and neither is it even an exception to the dogma as EWTN suggests..
So people of this sort who follow the law on their hearts are members of the Church, and as such, can be saved. This fits especially well with the words of Vatican II in LG 16.-EWTN
Here is Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II.
7. This missionary activity derives its reason from the will of God, "who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, Himself a man, Jesus Christ, who gave Himself as a ransom for all" (1 Tim. 2:45), "neither is there salvation in any other" (Acts 4:12). Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it." Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6), yet a necessity lies upon the Church (1 Cor. 9:16), and at the same time a sacred duty, to preach the Gospel. And hence missionary activity today as always retains its power and necessity…
The passage emphasized in yellow tells us that Catholic faith and the baptism of water are the ordinary means of salvation for all. The passage in red mentions those who are lost and are known only to God. The passage in green mentions those who can be saved and are known only to God and this passage does not claim that these non Catholics are de facto known to us or that they are exceptions to the passage in yellow or the dogma.
The passage in yellow is defacto and that in green is de jure. When we read magisterial texts like the one above we have to use the defacto-dejure distinction otherwise there will be confusion. If you consider the passage in green as defacto it would contradict the passage in yellow.
Catholics seminarians who study Philosophy for two years are taught the Principle of Non Contradiction and are familiar with the defacto-dejure logic. If the passage in green is defacto and explicitly known to us as EWTN suggests, it would contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction. Even a Catholic layman would know that it is irrational.
EWTN is promoting first class heresy. In the Creed we pray , ‘I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church’. The Holy Spirit has guided the Church to proclaim the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The dogma does not mention invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire.In the Creed we pray'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin'. The baptism of water is needed to remove Original Sin. EWTN implies that the American Natives were saved in general in invincible ignorance and so did not need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation.
EWTN and Fr.William Most mention that the Church teaches invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. Where is the Church document, I repeat, which says those saved in invincible ignorance or with the baptism of desire are explicitly known to us or contradict the dogma? EWTN contradicts the Creed.
Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment