Cardinal Raymond Burke Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal (Signatura), Rome offers the Pontifical Latin Mass with religious communities who teach there can be non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire. This is true, it is acceptable in principle and is a possibility according to Church-teaching.
The error begins when they imply that those who are saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
They assume that these cases are defacto (known in reality) and so they contradict a defined dogma. The dogma indicates everyone must be an explicit, visible member of the Church for salvation. No exceptions are mentioned since these are implicit cases. They are explicit only for God. Neither does Vatican Council II or the Catechism of the Catholic Church mention an explicitly known baptism of desire.
The priests who offer the solemn Pontifical Latin Mass with the cardinal assume those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are exceptions to the dogma. They infer there is a visible baptism of desire.For them is an exception to the dogma. They infer that those saved in the present time are known to us. It is assumed we can telephone or meet a non Catholic saved who ‘has not had the Gospel preached to him’ or dies before he receives the baptism of water, which he desired.
Since there is a visible baptism of desire it is assumed innocently by these religious that Fr. Leonard Feeney was wrong in saying everyone needs to be a visible member of the Church and there are no exceptions. They assume he was excommunicated for denying an explicit baptism of desire.This infer Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for heresy even though the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 does not say it. It mentions disobedience. He was disobedient. He did not go to Rome when called. He refused a transfer. In conscience he could not obey his Superiors who taught there was salvation (defacto and known) outside the Catholic Church. He could not reject an ex cathedra dogma with new theories at that time, of defacto- known-cases of invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.
Years later they would understand and the excommunication would be lifted, without him having to recant.So today priests who innocently believe that Fr. Leonard Feeney was in heresy are in error. Disobedient yes. Heresy, no.
These priests are also in mortal sin if they knowingly reject a defined dogma with their defacto exceptions.
Visible baptism of desire in itself is a contradiction.It contradicts the Principle of Non Contradiction. It also contradicts the dogma Cantate Domino, Council of Florence.
If we assume that those saved in invincible ignorance etc are known to us in the present time, then it would imply that all non Catholics do not have to enter the Church for salvation but only those who ‘know’ about Jesus and the Church.
Bro. Anthony F.I is the American liturgist of the solemn Traditional Latin Mass with the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate in Boccea, Rome. In his religious formation at the seminary in Boccea he was taught that those saved with the baptism of desire etc are rare cases. In general everyone needs to enter the Church for salvation.
If they are acceptable as rare cases, accepted only in principle, and not defacto known to us in particular cases, then they do not contradict the dogma. This is not a denial of the dogma outside the church there is no salvation and it is not a public sin. This would mean that those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are not defacto exceptions to the dogma in the present time. They are not explicitly known so they do not contradict the dogma.
It means that the Church still upholds the centuries old interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the popes, saints, Church Councils and Fr. Leonard Feeney. The same interpretation as the communities of Fr. Leonard Feeney today in the USA who are recognised by the Catholic Church.
In this case it would not be an impediment for these priests to offer the Pontifical Latin Mass with Cardinal Raymond Burke.
-Lionel Andrades
Posts
10 comments:
As I mentioned in a previous comment, which I did not see posted, the dogma as explained by the Magisterium teaches that the Church is necessary for salvation as a necessity of means. Therefore, implicit cases of salvation (Baptism of Desire) must be included in the dogma. Otherwise, you would be inadvertently admitting that there are exceptions to the dogma.
"Some Catholic authors attempted to explain the dogma of the Church's necessity for the attainment of eternal salvation by saying that the Church is only the ordinary means, and that it is still possible, in extraordinary cases, for a man to attain the Beatific Vision outside the Church. At the same time they resolutely claimed, as Newman had done, that is a Catholic dogma that there is no salvation oustide the Church. Manifestly, according to this explanation, the dogma would be nothing more than a vain formula, something which the very people who accept it as a dogma would be expected to treat, for all practical purposes, as untrue. Ultimately, of course, this explanation coincides with the one offered by Newman in his Letter to the Duke of Norfolk."
(The Catholic Church and Salvation, pg. 126, Monsignor Clifford Fenton, Published in 2006 by Seminary Press)
Necessity of means and precepts are accepted theologically.
It is accepted in principle.
As a concept it makes sense.
De facto we do not know any case.
The dogma does not mention it.
You may assume that implicit salvation is included in the dogma. However that is an assumption.
The dogma does not mention it.
Assumptions are concepts. Concepts are not defacto exceptions to the dogma.
p.s. the previous comment has been posted
Bro.Anthony : "Some Catholic authors attempted to explain the dogma of the Church's necessity for the attainment of eternal salvation by saying that the...
Lionel: Defacto the Church is the ordinary means of salvation and there are no exceptions.
De jure in principle and ‘in certain circumstances’(Letter of the Holy Office 1949) it is possible 'for a man to attain the Beatific Vision outside the Church’ if God wills it. We do not know personally of any such case in the present time. So it does not contradict the dogmatic teaching.
Bro.Anthony: At the same time they resolutely claimed, as Newman had done, that is a Catholic dogma that there is no salvation oustide the Church... (The Catholic Church and Salvation, pg. 126, Monsignor Clifford Fenton, Published in 2006 by Seminary Press)
Lionel : Please note that Msgr.Fenton does not seem aware of the defacto –dejure distinction already there in magisterial texts.
GAPS IN THE WRITING OF MONS. JOSEPH FENTON ?
Mons. Fenton would like to believe that Cantate Domino refers to implicit baptism of desire since he implies that the baptism of desire is known and visible to us.
He also assumed that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 referred to explicit baptism of desire as did the Archbishop of Boston.
He never pointed out in his writings that the Letter of the Holy Office supported Fr. Leonard Feeney on doctrine. He could not, since he assumed that those who are saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are known to us.The Archbishop said so and he assumes so did the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
So he is trying to accommodate this point in Cantate Domino even though the dogma says every one needs to convert into the Church.
In general Mons. Fenton affirms the dogma and says every one needs to enter the Church but he then implies there are visible exceptions with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance.Theologically he defended the dogma well against errors of his time in the USA.
The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance was known at the time of Cantate Domino and it was not assumed to be an exception to the dogma.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 does not imply that those who do not know about Jesus and the Church are exceptions to the dogma. This was the false assumption of the Archbishop of Boston Richard Cushing- and Mons. Joseph Fenton ? The Letter does not support Mons.Fenton here.
The Letter is not a criticism of Fr.Leonard Feeney since he was not saying that 'only those who know' can be saved. He was affirming the dogma which says all people need to convert into the Church and not just 'those who know'.(Cantate Domino, Council of Florence etc).
CONTINUED
CONTINUED
Those who are saved with the baptism of desire are not exceptions to the dogma. There is no visible baptism of desire.The baptism of desire would have to be visible and explicit to be an exception to the dogmatic teaching. So this passage cannot be held against Fr.Leonard Feeney. Mons. Fenton suggests that there was salvation outside the church and cited those with the baptism of desire. Yes but these cases are unknown to us. He implies that these cases are known so are exceptions to the dogma. The Society of St.Pius X makes the sane error. They say every one needs to enter the Church and they also claim that there are known exceptions. Hence they could not say that all those present at Assisi III are oriented to Hell. How could they do so? Since for them there could be some known exceptions!!!
It was Cardinal Richard Cushing who assumed that the baptism of desire was an exception to the dogma. He believed that those saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma. Fr.Feeney said the contrary.
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?
Where does Mons. Fenton mention that there is a dejure-defacto pattern in magisterial texts ? Did he notice it?
Did Mons. Fenton use a dejure-defacto analysis of magisterial texts including the Letter of the Holy Office ?
Did he mention the Principle of Non Contradiction when interpreting the Letter of the Holy Office and Vatican Council II ?
Did he discuss how could Fr. Leonard Feeney be in heresy for making the same statements as the popes and saints ?
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’ ?
Did he ever discuss a visible baptism of desire being an exception to a defined dogma ?
Without the defacto-dejure analysis will there not be ambiguity in his writings ?
"Please note that Msgr.Fenton does not seem aware of the defacto –dejure distinction already there in magisterial texts."
Do you really expect me to believe that an eminent theologian like Monsignor Fenton overlooked this distinction? That is too incredible! Monsignor Fenton went over the Magisterial documents on the dogma with a fine tooth comb and wrote several articles on it. Perhaps, rather, the distinction you are making is not as clear as the distinction between the necessity of precept and the necessity of means.
Do you really expect me to believe that an eminent theologian like Monsignor Fenton overlooked this distinction?
See the distinction here and then tell me where is it in the writings of Msgr.Fenton.
VATICAN COUNCIL II
Lumen Gentium 14 says everyone needs to enter the Church, ‘the necessity of faith and baptism’. This is the same teaching as Cantate Domino. The dogma says every one with no exception needs to formally enter the Church to avoid Hell.
This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church.-Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II.
Lumen Gentium 15 and 16 refer to those saved implicitly and who are not formal members of the Church. They can be saved of course but who they are will always not be known to us. Specific cases are known only to God. So since they are not explicitly known to us they do not contradict Lumen Gentium 14 which indicates every one needs to be a formal member( ‘faith and baptism’) for salvation.
If you considered implicit salvation as explicitly known to us then Lumen Gentium 15-16 would contradict Lumen Gentium 14. Then Lumen Gentium would be confusing as some call it, a mystery.
Lumen Gentium 15. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter….
Lumen Gentium 16: Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God…
Do you really expect me to believe that an eminent theologian like Monsignor Fenton overlooked this distinction?
Note the distinction here.Did the eminent theologian observe it?
QUANTO CONFICIAMUR
8. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church –Quanto Conficamur, Pope Pius IX 1863
7. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments...-Qunato Conficamur
If those saved with invincible ignorance are explicitly known to us then N. 8 will contradict N.7. If invincible ignorance is implicit, there is no contradiction between 8 and 7.
LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949
Here the Letter is affirming 'the dogma', the 'infallible statement'. The dogma is Cantate Domino, Council of Florence which holds the ‘strict interpretation’ of outside the church there is no salvation. Every one needs to formally, explicitly be a member of the Catholic Church with no exception says the dogma. It was defined ex cathedra and so it is 'infallilble'.
The Letter affirms implicit salvation ( invincible ignorance, baptism of desire etc ). If implicit baptism of desire is considered explicit and known to us, then the Letter would contradict itself.Since it indicates every one in Boston needs to explicitly be a member of the Catholic Church ; all non Catholics there need to convert to avoid Hell (Cantate Domino). Then it would also indicate that there could be non Catholics in Boston known to us, who are saved in invincible ignorance or with the baptism of desire and so they do not have to convert into the Catholic Church.This would mean the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma.
Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.
However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949 during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII to the Archbishop of Boston (emphasis added)
The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949 (emphasis added )
Reason tells us that we do not know any case of person saved in this category so how can they be exceptions to the dogma. Also how could all the popes contradict themself in so many magisterial texts ?
Over the centuries the Catholic Church assumed implicit salvation was implicit and not an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Bro.Anthony :Perhaps, rather, the distinction you are making is not as clear as the distinction between the necessity of precept and the necessity of means.
Lionel: The necessity of precept and means is a theological distinction and it is accepted.
Only God judges the distinction between the necessity of precept and the necessity of means.
Since we do not know any such case we cannot imply that this is a part of the dogma or that it is an exception to the dogma.
The dogma says every one needs to enter the Church. It does not mention any exception of necessity of means or precept.
If there is a distinction in certain cases it is hypothetical for us, we would not know these cases, so it is not an exception to the dogma.
Post a Comment