He does not agree with Daphne McLeod, Chairman, Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice, England that the Catholic Church teaches that there can be non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire and they are are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. His Vocation Office would not expect candidates with a religious vocation to affirm the dogma as interpreted by the Church for centuries.
I had asked (Nov.2,2011) Catholic priests in England who are Vocation directors and promoters to let me know if they agree with with Daphne McLeod, Chairman, Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice, England that the Catholic Church teaches that those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? Was this the teaching of their office and will candidates with a religious vocation have to hold to this teaching?
I have received an e-mail reply today from Fr. Stephen Langridge, Director of Vocations, Southwark, England.
He said candidates with a religious vocation in England would have to adhere to the doctrine outside the church there is no salvation but would not proclaim it as did Fr. Leonard Feeney.
This is a rejection of the dogma as affirmed by Daphne McLeod.Fr. Stephen Langridge is also not willing to acknowledge that the baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma.
Daphne McLeod agrees that those who die in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire can be saved. Since these cases are not explicitly known to us they do not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
He writes ‘That there is no salvation outside the Church means that there is no other source for salvation except for Jesus Christ who is inseparably united to his body the Church. In the words of St Paul there is no other name by which we can be saved.’
He is ignoring the dogma defined by three Church Councils. The dogma Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441 states all non Catholics need to enter the Church to avoid the fires of Hell.
If there is any one saved with the baptism of desire etc they would be saved by Jesus and the Church and this does not contradict the dogma. The dogma mentions the necessity of the Church. Fr. Stephen is implying that other Christian denominations are equal paths to salvation.
The dogma says Protestants and Orthodox Christians need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation.It does not mention any exceptions.
The dogma says Protestants and Orthodox Christians need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation.It does not mention any exceptions.
Similarly those who die with a good conscience and are saved are known only to God so it does not contradict the dogma which says every one needs to be an explicit member of the Church for salvation. Fr. Stephen implies that we know cases of those saved with a good conscience and so this is an exception to the dogmatic teaching.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 did not condemn Fr. Leonard Feeney but supported him when it referred to ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible statement’. There is no reference to the dogma by Fr. Stephen but he calls it a ‘doctrine’ and ‘teaching’.
Pope Pius XII was saying, as the dogma and Fr. Leonard Feeney taught, that all non Catholics in Boston and the rest of the world need to enter the Church to avoid the fires of Hell. This would apply also to England.
-Lionel Andrades
Here is Fr.Stephen Langridge, Director of Vocations, Southwark , England's
Dear Mr Andrades
I apologise for the delay to your recent email asking whether candidates with a religious vocation have to hold to the teaching summarised by the Latin expression 'extra ecclesiam nulla salus'.
Since this is the teaching of the Church we would expect those called to proclaim the Church's teaching to adhere to it. However, the doctrine should not be interpreted in the narrow Feenyite sense which has itself been condemned.
That there is no salvation outside the Church means that there is no other source for salvation except for Jesus Christ who is inseparably united to his body the Church. In the words of St Paul there is no other name by which we can be saved.
It is not true to say that those who die in invincible ignorance or with the baptism of desire are not saved. The Second Vatican Council reached that those who live in accordance with their conscience can get to heaven. However, they do so not by their own merits, or by the merits of some other faith, but by the saving action of Jesus Christ. Therefore salvation comes to them through the Church.
I hope that explains things. I am sure you will understand if I say I do not have time to enter into a theological discussion with you. Noting that you live in Rome, perhaps you could approach one of the many theologians teaching in that place for further clarifications.
Yours sincerely
Fr Stephen Langridge
Posts
22 comments:
"...the dogma which says every one needs to be an explicit member of the Church for salvation."
No. The dogma does not say that every one needs to be an explicit member of the Church for salvation. The dogma says that "Outside the Church, there is no salvation". Being an explicit member is the principle way of being "within the Church", but it is not the exclusive way. Those who are saved by Baptism of Desire are also "within the Church" even though they are not explicit members.
Bro. Anthony: "...the dogma which says every one needs to be an explicit member of the Church for salvation." No. The dogma does not say that every one needs to be an explicit member of the Church for salvation. The dogma says that "Outside the Church, there is no salvation".
Lionel: It says that every one needs to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation. Everyone on earth can convert into the Church only through the baptism of water given to adults with Catholic Faith.
You cannot convert into the Church with the baptism of desire. It is a gift given by God and it is only God who knows who these exceptional cases are in the present times.
Bro. Anthony: Being an explicit member is the principle way of being "within the Church", but it is not the exclusive way.
Lionel: Yes it is the ordinary way of being “within the Church” and it is the only way possible on earth for us humans in the present times. Since we cannot administer the baptism of desire.
Bro. Anthony: Those who are saved by Baptism of Desire are also "within the Church" even though they are not explicit members.
Lionel: True, those who are saved with the baptism of desire are also “within the Church” in a manner known only to God and they are unknown to us, they would not be visible members of the Church.
So they are not exceptions to the dogma which says every one needs to be an explicit member of the Church for salvation.
The dogma does not say that one needs to be an explicit member of the Church for salvation. The dogma says that one needs to be "within" the Church for salvation. Monsignor Clifford Fenton expounds on this in his book and in his articles that he wrote for the American Ecclesiastical Review. As you said you are fond of his writings, can you please direct me to where he agrees with your proposition that the true meaning of the dogma is that one needs to be an explicit member of the Church for salvation?
bro.Anthony :The dogma does not say that one needs to be an explicit member of the Church for salvation. The dogma says that one needs to be "within" the Church for salvation.
Lionel: Cantate Domino, Council of Florence says every one needs to convert into the Church to avoid the fires of Hell.When a non Catholic converts into the Church he is “within” the Church, he is an explicit member of the Church.
Bro. Anthony: Monsignor Clifford Fenton expounds on this in his book and in his articles that he wrote for the American Ecclesiastical Review. As you said you are fond of his writings, can you please direct me to where he agrees with your proposition that the true meaning of the dogma is that one needs to be an explicit member of the Church for salvation?
Lionel: Mons. Fenton throughout his writings explains the dogma in its traditional understanding that one needs to enter the Church. One cannot enter the church with the baptism of desire or choosing to be saved in invincible ignorance. One can only enter the Church through the baptism of water and Catholic faith.
I am not exactly fond of his writings I have read some of them on the internet and I agree with him.
Well, forgive me, but I can't for the life of me see where Fr Stephen contradicts Daphne McLeod formaliter - nor where he contradicts, for that matter the meaning of the Church's teaching on the question: unless you are requiring him to do a copy and paste of of Denzinger in order to answer your question?
McCleod, following the Church's tradition, accepts that there are other ways of being incorporated into the Body of Christ for non-Catholics, other than sacramental baptism. Fr Stephen seems to be saying the same thing. The only ambiguity perhaps being in his penultimate paragraph:
"It is not true to say that those who die in invincible ignorance or with the baptism of desire are not saved."
A certain reading of this would imply that they are indeed saved - whereas I suspect that the reading more consonant with his letter would be: they may be saved, even if they have not been sacramentally baptised.
Perhaps you could clarify for me where exactly I have failed to grasp the nuances of his position, Daphne McLeod's, your own, and those of the Church - because I'm darned if I can see much of a difference.
Thanking you kindly.
Well, forgive me, but I can't for the life of me see where Fr Stephen contradicts Daphne McLeod formaliter - nor where he contradicts, for that matter the meaning of the Church's teaching on the question: unless you are requiring him to do a copy and paste of of Denzinger in order to answer your question?
Lionel: Daphne McLeod is saying that non Catholics can be saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance and this does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Fr.Stephen says ‘the doctrine should not be interpreted in the narrow Feenyite sense’.He is implying that Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for saying that every one needs to be a visible member of the Church and there are no exceptions like the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance. Fr.Stephen assumes that the baptism of desire etc are exceptions to the dogma which indicates every one needs to be an explicit, visible member of the Church to avoid Hell.
He also says ‘there is no salvation outside the Church means that there is no other source for salvation except for Jesus Christ who is inseparably united to his body the Church.’ The dogma says all need to enter the Church for salvation. All, includes Christians from the different denominations who believe in Jesus.
Fr.Stephen writes ‘The Second Vatican Council preached that those who live in accordance with their conscience can get to heaven.’ Again he is implying that this is an exception to the dogma.
McCleod, following the Church's tradition, accepts that there are other ways of being incorporated into the Body of Christ for non-Catholics, other than sacramental baptism.
Lionel:Correct.
However this way is known only to God and it is not the ordinary means of salvation. The ordinary means being Catholic Faith and the baptism of water. It is also not an exception to the dogma which does not mention any exceptions and says all need to convert into the Catholic Church.
Fr Stephen seems to be saying the same thing.
Lionel: Fr.Stephen like Daphne McLeod accepts in principle that a non Catholic can be saved with the baptism of desire, invincible ignorance, good conscience etc.However he sees this as an exception to the teaching on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The dogma says every one in the present times needs to enter the Church and there are no exceptions.
The only ambiguity perhaps being in his penultimate paragraph: "It is not true to say that those who die in invincible ignorance or with the baptism of desire are not saved." A certain reading of this would imply that they are indeed saved - whereas I suspect that the reading more consonant with his letter would be: they may be saved, even if they have not been sacramentally baptised.
Lionel:It is true that a non Catholic can be saved in invincible ignorance and God would know the means and manner provided. However these cases are unknown to us. So they are not an exception to the teaching that every one needs the baptism of water and Catholic Faith for salvation.(LG 14,AG 7).
Perhaps you could clarify for me where exactly I have failed to grasp the nuances of his position, Daphne McLeod's, your own, and those of the Church - because I'm darned if I can see much of a difference. Thanking you kindly.
Lionel: Daphne McLeod is saying that the Catholic Church has not changed its teaching before or after Vatican Council II on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.There is only one interpretation of the dogma and hence there is the need for Catholic missionaries.
"No one can be saved outside of the Church, that is, without being in it either actually and in reality or by desire and intent. For when any person, in light of the true faith, is converted to God with all his heart and wishes to be incorporated into the Church, in such way that it is not his fault that he is not externally and really incorporated into it, then he can be saved by reason of that desire. In the same way, under similar circumstances, he can be saved with the intention of baptism."
(Monsignor Clifford Fenton quoting John Wiggers in Fenton's article called the "Theological Proof for the Necessity of the Catholic Church")
Monsignor Clifford Fenton does not agree with you that one must be an explicit member of the Church to be saved.
Bro.Anthony:"No one can be saved outside of the Church, that is, without being in it either actually and in reality or by desire and intent.
Lionel: True no one can be saved outside of the Church that is without being in it actually, through Catholic Faith and the baptism of water or by desire and intent that is with the baptism of desire.
Either way they are saved through Jesus and the Church.
Bro.Anthony: For when any person, in light of the true faith, is converted to God with all his heart and wishes to be incorporated into the Church, in such way that it is not his fault that he is not externally and really incorporated into it, then he can be saved by reason of that desire. In the same way, under similar circumstances, he can be saved with the intention of baptism."
Lionel: True he can be saved with the intention of baptism.
(Monsignor Clifford Fenton quoting John Wiggers in Fenton's article called the "Theological Proof for the Necessity of the Catholic Church")
Bro.Anthony :Monsignor Clifford Fenton does not agree with you that one must be an explicit member of the Church to be saved.
Lionel: In principle we agree that a person can be saved a) through the baptism of water and Catholic Faith as that of converts and this is the ordinary means of salvation while (b) it is also possible that a non Catholic can be saved with the baptism of desire etc and these cases are known only to God.
Since it is always known to God only (b) is not an exception to (a).
Everyone needs to be an explicit member of the Church (a) is the teaching of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II (LG 14,AG 7)
Lionel, please show me a pre-Vatican II church text that teaches that the dogma refers to explicit membership only. Monsignor Clifford Fenton did not agree with you.
Bro.Anthony:...please show me a pre-Vatican II church text that teaches that the dogma refers to explicit membership only. Monsignor Clifford Fenton did not agree with you.
Lionel:
I am quoting the text of the dogma itself. The dogma says everyone needs to convert into the Church for salvation. You cannot convert with the baptism of desire or choose to be saved in invincible ignorance.
This is not just my view this is the teaching of the dogma.Mons.Fenton endorses the traditional teaching. He no where implies that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma.
Here is the text of extra ecclesiam nulla salus in the Extra ordinary form.
MORE LIBERAL NOVUS ORDO PRIESTS ARE ACCEPTING EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/07/more-liberal-novus-ordo-priests-are.html#links
We both have agreed that the dogma encompasses both those who are explicit members and those who die with baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance. Right? Therefore, when you say that the dogma teaches that every one must be an explicit member of the Church to be saved, you are actually contradicting yourself. I agree that the dogma teaches that one is obliged to join the Church, but this must be understood in the sense of being one in actuality or in desire. If one is joined to the Church only by desire, this suffices if it was beyond their control for not joining the Church as an actual member. God does not expect the impossible from us.
Monsignor Fenton, I am sorry, does not agree with you if you hold that the dogma teaches that one must be an explicit member to be saved.
You still have not given me proof that the Church (prior to VII) teaches that the dogma means that one must be an explicit member of the Church to be saved.
We both have agreed that the dogma encompasses both those who are explicit members and those who die with baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance. Right?
Lionel: We do not agree here. The dogma does not mention those who die with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance.
Bro.Anthony: Therefore, when you say that the dogma teaches that every one must be an explicit member of the Church to be saved, you are actually contradicting yourself.
Lionel:
Bro.Anthony will say:
I agree that the dogma teaches that one is obliged to join the Church
Bro.Anthony : I agree that the dogma teaches that one is obliged to join the Church,
Lionel: True.
Bro.Anthony :but this must be understood in the sense of being one in actuality or in desire.
Lionel: It must be understood in the sense of being one in actuality correct. In actuality only. How can one convert into the Catholic Church with the baptism of desire. In actuality you can only convert with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.
Bro.Anthony: If one is joined to the Church only by desire, this suffices if it was beyond their control for not joining the Church as an actual member. God does not expect the impossible from us.
Lionel: Yes they can be saved. However the dogma does not mention these cases. You are assuming that this is an exception to the dogma.
Bro.Anthony: Monsignor Fenton, I am sorry, does not agree with you if you hold that the dogma teaches that one must be an explicit member to be saved.
Lionel:Please see the text of the dogma.
http://catholicism.org/cantate-domino.html
Also note that when a non Catholic is saved it is known only to God and we do not know any such case in the present time. So Mons. Fenton is correct in saying that every one needs to be a member of the Church through the baptism of water.
In the present times only those who have received the baptism of water given to adults with Catholic Faith are members of the Catholic Church.
If there is anyone saved with a good conscience, invincible ignorance etc (Vatican Council II) we would not know of any such case.So we do not know of any member of the Church who is saved with a good conscience etc.
Can you quote some passage from Mons.Fenton where he says that we know who these exceptions are in the present times and so they contradict the dogma?
Bro.Anthony: You still have not given me proof that the Church (prior to VII) teaches that the dogma means that one must be an explicit member of the Church to be saved.
Lionel: There is the text of the three defined dogmas. (Fourth Lateran Council, Bull Unam Sanctam, Cantate Domino, Council of Florence)
There is the text of the teachings of the Popes in the ordinary Magisterium on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
There is Vatican Council II itself(LG 14,AG 7).
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 refers to 'the dogma', the 'infallible teaching'. The text of the dogma is clear. It was clear for numerous saints, the popes and for Pope Pius XII.
Proposition 1: It is necessary for one to be an explicit member of the Church for salvation.
Proposition 2: It is not necessary for one to be an explicit member of the Church for salvation.
Lionel, which of the two above propositions is the correct interpretation of the dogma that "Outside the Church, there is no salvation"? They are contradictory propositions so choosing one excludes the other.
Proposition 1: It is necessary for one to be an explicit member of the Church for salvation.
Lionel: Yes.
Defacto every one with no exception needs to be an explicit member of the Catholic Church for salvation (extra ecclesiam nulla salus, LG 14,AG 7).
Bro.Anthony: Proposition 2: It is not necessary for one to be an explicit member of the Church for salvation.
Lionel: De jure (in principle) as a concept, hypothetically and known to God only, a non Catholic can be saved in invincible ignorance, the baptism of desire, a good conscience etc. De facto (in reality) we do not know any such case.
Bro.Anthony: Lionel, which of the two above propositions is the correct interpretation of the dogma that "Outside the Church, there is no salvation"? They are contradictory propositions so choosing one excludes the other.
Lionel: They are contradictory when you do not make the de facto- dejure analysis. You do not specify when you are referring to explicit or implicit cases of salvation.
It is contradictory for example to say:
De facto every one needs to be an explicit,visible member of the Church of salvation and
De facto non Catholics in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire can be saved without the baptism of water.
It is not contradictory when you say:
Defacto every one with no exception needs to enter the Church as taught by ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible statement’.(Letter of the Holy Office 1949 during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII)
De jure a person can be saved with the baptism of desire.(Letter of the Holy Office 1949 during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII)
It is contradictory when you say:
De facto all people need to enter the Catholic Church with the baptism of water and Catholic Faith for salvation.(Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium 14, Ad Gentes 7).
De facto some people can be saved in invincible ignorance.(Lumen Gentium 16).
It is not contradictory when you say:
De facto all people need to enter the Catholic Church with the baptism of water and Catholic Faith for salvation. (Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium 14,Ad Gentes7).
De jure some people can be saved in invincible ignorance.(Lumen Gentium 16).
Your distinction between "de facto" and "de jure" does not clarify the argument, but only confuses it. If it is necessary for one to be an explicit member of the Church "de facto" (i.e., in fact/in reality) without exception, then it is metaphyically impossible for one to be saved by baptism of desire "de jure" (i.e., in principle).
Your distinction between "de facto" and "de jure" does not clarify the argument, but only confuses it.
Lionel: The defacto-dejure analysis is already there in the magisterial texts. I am only pointing it out.
If you do not use this analysis it would be a contradiction of the Principle of Non Contradiction.
Bro.Anthony: If it is necessary for one to be an explicit member of the Church "de facto" (i.e., in fact/in reality) without exception,
Lionel: Yes without any known exception. Without any exception known in reality.
Bro.Anthony :then it is metaphyically impossible for one to be saved by baptism of desire "de jure" (i.e., in principle).
Lionel: A person can be saved in principle (theoretically) by the baptism of desire even if the case is not known to us.
Lionel,
I am really trying to understand what you are saying, but I must say that I am having a hard time. These are the two propositions that I get from your statements regarding the meaning of the dogma:
1. De facto, it is necessary for one to be an explicit member of the Church for salvation.
"De facto" means "in reality, truly, in fact". "Explicit" means "perceptible to the senses so that one becomes knowledgeable of a fact". Therefore, one must really, truly, and factually receive the baptism of water poured over the head with the words of the sacrament annunciated by someone other than the one being baptized who has the intention of doing what the Church does. The person being baptized approaches the sacrament with Catholic Faith. The result of this act is that the sacramental character is imprinted on the soul and original and actual sin effaced from the soul.
2. De jure, one in invincible ignorance may be saved with baptism of desire but these cases are only known to God (i.e., they are implicit)
"De jure" means "in principle, hypothetically, theoretically". "Implicit" means "not perceptible to the senses and therefore unknown".
I hope I got everything correct as to my understanding of your position. If I am correct, then by proposition #2 you admit that it is very possible that there is someone in heaven at this moment who did not "de facto" (in reality, truly, in fact) receive the sacrament of water baptism and therefore did not become a member of the Church. Therefore, how can you not admit that the two propositions are contradictory? If something is possible in principle (de jure), then it invariably follows that you will have cases of that principle in reality (de facto), regardless of whether we know about it or not.
Very well explained Bro.Anthony.Good job!
Bro.Anthony:
Lionel, I am really trying to understand what you are saying, but I must say that I am having a hard time. These are the two propositions that I get from your statements regarding the meaning of the dogma: 1. De facto, it is necessary for one to be an explicit member of the Church for salvation. "De facto" means "in reality, truly, in fact". "Explicit" means "perceptible to the senses so that one becomes knowledgeable of a fact". Therefore, one must really, truly, and factually receive the baptism of water poured over the head with the words of the sacrament annunciated by someone other than the one being baptized who has the intention of doing what the Church does. The person being baptized approaches the sacrament with Catholic Faith. The result of this act is that the sacramental character is imprinted on the soul and original and actual sin effaced from the soul.
Lionel. Correct.
Bro.Anthony : 2. De jure, one in invincible ignorance may be saved with baptism of desire but these cases are only known to God (i.e., they are implicit) "De jure" means "in principle, hypothetically, theoretically". "Implicit" means "not perceptible to the senses and therefore unknown". I hope I got everything correct as to my understanding of your position.
Lionel: Correct. This is what I am trying to say.
Bro.Anthony: If I am correct, then by proposition #2 you admit that it is very possible that there is someone in heaven at this moment who did not "de facto" (in reality, truly, in fact) receive the sacrament of water baptism and therefore did not become a member of the Church.
Lionel: By Proposition N.2 I am saying that there could be someone saved with the baptism of desire, invincible ignorance etc and it would be known only to God. That’s all.
The means and manner God uses to save a person with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance is known only to God.
St.Thomas Aquinas says that there could be a man in the forest in ignorance and God could send a preacher to him. So before he dies he could be baptized and know about the Faith.
We know many saints including St.Francis Xavier have baptized people who have returned from the dead. They returned, or were ‘sent back’ only to be baptized with water.
Bro.Anthony: Therefore, how can you not admit that the two propositions are contradictory?
Lionel: They are contradictory if one considers those saved with the baptism of desire etc as visible, and de facto known to us. If we do not know any of these cases they do not contradict the teaching that every one needs to be an explicit member of the Church for salvation.
Bro.Anthony. If something is possible in principle (de jure), then it invariably follows that you will have cases of that principle in reality (de facto), regardless of whether we know about it or not.
Lionel: Correct and the important point is that we do not know any such case visibly so it is in a sense, irrelevant. It is not ‘regardless if we know about it or not,’ we do not know about them, this is the important point.
Hold on Lionel. By giving the example of what St. Thomas Aquinas said, are you implying that every one, without exception, will receive the baptism of water one way or another before they die, even if we don't know about it???
By the way, I found an article by Monsignor Clifford Fenton called "Two Recent Explanations of the Church's Necessity for Salvation". In it, he propounds the same thesis that I have been trying to explain regarding the true meaning of the dogma, which is different than the position you hold.
"There is no statement of the ecclesiastical magisterium to the effect that actual membership in the Church is requisite for the attainment of eternal salvation.....In no case is there any reference to a necessity of actual membership in the true Church....The Suprema haec sacra is quite explicit on this point.....according to this authoritative instruction (Suprema) issued by the Holy Office at the command of the Holy Father himself, the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church definitely does not mean that a man has to be an actual member of the Church in order to be saved."
If you want a copy of the article, please e-mail me.
Bro.Anthony :Hold on Lionel. By giving the example of what St. Thomas Aquinas said, are you implying that every one, without exception, will receive the baptism of water one way or another before they die, even if we don't know about it???
Lionel: I have mentioned that the manner in which a non Catholic is saved in invincible ignorance is known only to God.These are hypothetical cases for us. We do not know who specifically are these people saved and the manner in which they are saved.
Bro.Atnthony: By the way, I found an article by Monsignor Clifford Fenton called "Two Recent Explanations of the Church's Necessity for Salvation". In it, he propounds the same thesis that I have been trying to explain regarding the true meaning of the dogma, which is different than the position you hold. "There is no statement of the ecclesiastical magisterium to the effect that actual membership in the Church is requisite for the attainment of eternal salvation.....
Lionel: Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441.
The Catholic Church has not retracted this defined dogma. It says all non Catholics and non Christians need to convert into the Church to avoid the fires of Hell. One can only convert into the Church with the baptism of water given to adults with Catholic Faith. We cannot convert into the Church with the baptism of desire etc this is not the ordinary means of salvation.It is also not physically possible or repeatable like the baptism of water.
Bro.Anthony: In no case is there any reference to a necessity of actual membership in the true Church....
Lionel: Cantate Domino,Council of Florence.
Bro.Anthony: The Suprema haec sacra is quite explicit on this point.....according to this authoritative instruction (Suprema) issued by the Holy Office at the command of the Holy Father himself, the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church definitely does not mean that a man has to be an actual member of the Church in order to be saved."
Lionel: The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 (Haec Suprema) refers to ‘the dogma’ the ‘infallible teaching’. The text of ‘the dogma’ indicates that ‘a man has to be an actual member of the Church in order to be saved’.This was also the interpretation of the popes and saints.
Lionel,
I thank you for the discussion, but I will end it at this point.
I believe that you are teaching error regarding the meaning of the dogma as clearly illustrated by the writings of the eminent, orthodox theologian Monsignor Clifford Fenton.
Bro.Anthony you admire Mons. Fenton and believe in him. You have studied his writings.
Please tell me:
1.Where does Mons. Fenton say that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 mentioned ‘the dogma’, ‘the infallible statement’ and the dogma indicates all non Catholics in Boston need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell? Where did he say that the Letter of the Holy Office agrees with Fr. Leonard Feeney on doctrine?
2. Where does Mons. Fenton mention that there is a dejure-defacto pattern in magisterial texts ? Did he notice it?
3. Did Mons. Fenton use a dejure-defacto analysis of magisterial texts including the Letter of the Holy Office ?
4. Did he mention the Principle of Non Contradiction when interpreting the Letter of the Holy Office and Vatican Council II ?
5. Did he discuss how could Fr. Leonard Feeney be in heresy for making the same statements as the popes and saints ?
6. Did he ever consider that Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits at Boston College were in heresy for suggesting that there was an explicitly known baptism of desire and it contradicted an ‘infallible statement’ ?
7. Did he ever discuss a visible baptism of desire being an exception to a defined dogma ?
Are these not important points?
Please tell me where does Mons. Fenton refer to these points or for that matter Fr. Peter Scott and Fr. Francois Laisney of the SSPX or Fr. Cekada, traditionalist and ex- SSPX ?
If Mons. Fenton does not answer these questions or does not ever refer to them then why are you making him such an important reference here ?
Without the defacto-dejure analysis will there not be ambiguity in his writings ?
Post a Comment