The Letter of the Holy Office only mentions the baptism of desire as did the Council of Trent. It does not say that the baptism of desire is explicitly known to us. It did not say that it was an exception to the dogma. Neither does the Council of Trent make this claim.
There are three defined dogmas on extra ecclesiam nulla salus. All three agree with Fr. Leonard Feeney. The three dogmas http://catholicism.org/category/outside-the-church-there-is-no-salvation on extra ecclesiam nulla salus state as does Fr. Leonard Feeney that every one needs to be a visible member of the Church for salvation i.e. every one needs Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.
They do not mention any exceptions as the baptism of desire etc since it is known that they are always implicit and not exceptions to the dogma. This was also Fr. Leonard Feeney's teaching.
The Letter of the Holy Office does not specifically say that he was excommunicated for heresy it mentions disobedience. One has to assume that he was excommunicated for heresy.
St. Pius XII uses the standard defacto-dejure analysis in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. The secular media interprets the Letter with the defacto-defacto model. It seems irrational. It does not make sense.
For example:
De facto-dejure model
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 refers to the dogma and so says that everyone de facto needs to enter the Church for salvation and there are no defacto exceptions.It also says de jure, in principle and known only to God, a non Catholic can be saved with the baptism of desire ‘in certain circumstances’ (Letter of the Holy Office 1949).
Defacto-defacto model
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 according to the secular media says every one de facto needs to enter the Church for salvation and there are de facto exceptions.
For the media and the liberals there are those who can be saved defacto with the baptism of desire which is defacto known to us.If the defacto-dejure analysis is not used some Magisterial texts would appear odd.
The defacto-dejure analysis is not a new theology. It’s a philosophical way of looking at things. The defacto- dejure analysis is used in theology. It’s a rational way of analysis. It clarifies for instance what is known, with what can be potentially known. It clarifies what is known in actuality (defacto) with what is known as a possibility (dejure).
Whether we are aware of it or not, we could be using either the defacto-dejure analysis or the irrational defacto-defacto model.
The defacto-dejure analysis was used in Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church etc. It does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction.
If the baptism of desire was not dejure, accepted only in principle, and if instead it was de facto and known to us, in personal cases, then the Letter of the Holy Office would contradict itself. t would mean Pope Pius XII says every one de facto needs to enter the Church (as mentioned in 'the dogma' ) but some people can also be defacto saved with the baptism of desire etc 'in certain circumstances'(Letter of the Holy Office).
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).
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. It does not say that popes and Church Fathers as referring to those saved in general with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance.
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.
It is not contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction when it is assumed that everyone de facto needs the baptism of water for salvation and some people in the present times in principle, de jure , can be saved without the baptism of water.
It is not a contradiction to say that everyone needs the baptism of water for salvation, this is an actuality, and to also say that some non Catholics’ in certain circumstances’ (Letter of the Holy Office 1949) can be saved without the baptism of water and it would be known only to God, this is a possibility.
Since one is an actuality and the other a possibility it does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction.
The Holy Office Letter of 1949 acknowledges there was a ‘controversy’. The controversy included the Archbishop and Jesuits of Boston.
Since the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 mentions ‘the dogma’ the Letter is a criticism of the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits at Boston College. So in this sense the Letter of the Holy Office was critical of the Archbishop of Boston. Since there were no known cases of the baptism of desire etc you cannot accommodate the Cushing Error and assume that the baptism of desire is a part of the dogma. An objective reading of the text of the dogma shows that there is no mention of any exceptions.
There are some parts of the Letter critical of Fr.Leonard Feeney who was excommunicated for disobedience. He did not go to Rome when called.There were issues which were not clarified.
There are some parts of the Letter critical of Fr.Leonard Feeney who was excommunicated for disobedience. He did not go to Rome when called.There were issues which were not clarified.
"From what has been said it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical From the Housetops, fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without."
The article it refers to was written by Raymond Karam and not Fr.Leonard Feeney. Karam defended the dogma without using the defacto-dejure clarification. Neither did the Holy Office and the Archbishop mention this reasoning which avoids contradicting the Principle of Non Contradiction. So it is possible that all the persons in the controversy were talking across to each other. There was confusion.
Here they could have assumed at that time that a cardinal could not teach error and heresy .So they believed the cardinal against the priest, who was also expelled from his religious community."From these declarations which pertain to doctrine it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a “Defender of the Faith,” and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities..."
We now know that ‘the lawful authorities’ in Boston, were saying that there was a defacto known baptism of desire etc, and this contradicted the interpretation of the dogma by Fr. Leonard Feeney and St. Benedict Center. The Richard Cushing Error of the explicilty known baptism of desire etc is irrational and not a doctrine of the Catholic Church.
Later the Holy Office would approve the lifting of the excommunication without Fr. Leonard Feeney having to recant or make any changes in his writings.
The Letter mentions the dogma and this is a criticism of the Archbishop. Since the dogma does not mention any exceptions as did the Archbishop.
The Letter mentions those who can be saved with a genuine desire. The Letter does not claim that these cases are defacto known to us and so contradict the dogma. This is a criticism of the Archbishop.
So the Letter of the Holy Office supports Fr.Leonard Feeney on doctrine and is in accord with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
So the Letter of the Holy Office supports Fr.Leonard Feeney on doctrine and is in accord with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
-Lionel Andrades
____________________________________________
SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2009
____________________________________________
SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2009
CDF(Holy Office) supports Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston in Letter
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 25, 2009
POPE PIUS XII STATED ALL JEWS IN BOSTON NEED TO ENTER THE CATHOLIC CHURCH FOR SALVATION
POPE PIUS XII SAID EVERY JEW, ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN AND MUSLIM NEEDS TO CONVERT TO AVOID HELL
SUNDAY, JUNE 20, 2010
CUSHING DOCTRINE SAYS LETTER OF HOLY OFFICE (1949) VIOLATES PRINCIPLE OF NON CONTRADICTION
WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 2011
THE HOLY FATHER POPE BENEDICT XVI IS A CUSHINGITE
MONDAY, AUGUST 1, 2011
Quanto Conficiamus of Pope Pius IX does not say that we know the baptism of desire explicitly
THURSDAY, JULY 28, 2011
VENERABLE POPE PIUS XII SAID ALL NON CATHOLICS NEED TO ENTER THE CHURCH WITH NO EXCEPTION TO AVOID HELL
Posts
6 comments:
”It does not say that the baptism of desire is explicitly known to us.”
I don’t think anybody claims that the baptism of desire is known to us (e.g., Archbishop Cushing). If so, please prove it to me demonstrating that they said this explicitly (and not by implication). Obviously, in the case of a catechumen, if we were certain that he had explicit baptism of desire, then there would be no need (other to fulfill Our Lord’s precept) to pursue getting him baptized. If we would pursue getting a catechumen baptized, how much more so would we pursue to get a non-catechumen baptized? The terms “explicit” and “implicit” are applied in reference to the person’s awareness of his desire to be baptized and not to whether Baptism of Desire is known or not known to us.
”….every one needs to be a visible member of the Church for salvation i.e. every one needs Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.”
Cantate Domino, for example, does not teach Baptism of Water as an absolute necessity. It is true that Our Lord commanded the Apostles to go out and baptize. However, the necessity to be baptized by water is only a necessity of precept. If the precept is not promulgated and made known to a person, then that person cannot be held guilty for not fulfilling that precept. Cantate Domino states that everyone must be united to the Church to be saved. Monsignor Fenton, who read and understood Latin, states that the Latin of Cantate Domino uses the term “aggregatio”, which refers to being united or aggregated. Cantate Domino does not state that it is an absolute necessity to be baptized by water to be saved.
”St. Pius XII uses the standard defacto-dejure analysis in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.”
That is incorrect. Pope Pius XII uses the common necessity of precept and necessity of means analysis as clearly explained by Monsignor Fenton.
”The defacto- dejure analysis is used in theology.”
Please show me one theologian (pre-Vatican II) who uses this analysis in reference to the dogma.
”So the Letter of the Holy Office supports Fr.Leonard Feeney on doctrine and is in accord with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.”
Really? Are we reading the same Holy Office Letter? Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for disobedience to legitimate authority. The root of this disobedience was a doctrinal aberration on his part. You make a contrary claim here to what is clear in the Holy Office Letter. The Holy Office Letter condemns Fr. Feeney. It does not support him.
Bro.Amthony :
”It does not say that the baptism of desire is explicitly known to us.” I don’t think anybody claims that the baptism of desire is known to us (e.g., Archbishop Cushing). If so, please prove it to me demonstrating that they said this explicitly (and not by implication).
Lionel:
In a prepared statement for the press the former Jesuit added: "The conscience difficulty is that the diocese of Boston, under the auspices of Archbishop Cushing, and Boston College, under the auspices of Father John J. McEloney, S.J., both notably ignorant in the field of Catholic theology ... are teaching that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church." - Father Feeney Is Dismissed From Jesuit Order by Rome
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1949/10/29/father-feeney-is-dismissed-from-jesuit/
The Archbishop and the Jesuits were teaching that there was salvation outside the church. In other words, that the baptism of desire and invincible e ignorance were exceptions to the dogma. They could only be exceptions if the baptism of desire etc were known to us in particular cases.
If the baptism of desire is not known to us then how can they be defacto exceptions to the dogma?
Implicit baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma.
So the Archbishop was implying that teh baptism of desire is visible and unknown to us in particular cases.
Bro.Anthony :
Obviously, in the case of a catechumen, if we were certain that he had explicit baptism of desire, then there would be no need (other to fulfil Our Lord’s precept) to pursue getting him baptized. If we would pursue getting a catechumen baptized, how much more so would we pursue to get a non-catechumen baptized?
Lionel:
This is all very well for a conceptual discussion on this issue. However we also have to note that we do not know defacto, any case of a catechumen…
Bro.Anthony :
The terms “explicit” and “implicit” are applied in reference to the person’s awareness of his desire to be baptized and not to whether Baptism of Desire is known or not known to us. ”
Lionel:
The terms explicit and implicit can be used conceptually. However we have to recognize that it is all conceptual. We do not know any defacto case of implicit baptism of desire. Since the baptism of desire is never ever explicit for us.
CONTINUED
CONTINUED
Bro.Anthony .
”….every one needs to be a visible member of the Church for salvation i.e. every one needs Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.”
Cantate Domino, for example, does not teach Baptism of Water as an absolute necessity. It is true that Our Lord commanded the Apostles to go out and baptize.
Lionel:
Here is Cantate Domino.
• “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church…can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her…No one…can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)
-Catholicism.org
CONTINUED
CONTINUED
Bro.Anthony :
However, the necessity to be baptized by water is only a necessity of precept. If the precept is not promulgated and made known to a person, then that person cannot be held guilty for not fulfilling that precept.
Lionel:
The necessity of being baptized by water is a necessity of means and precept and the difference between the two will be judged by God only.
For you and me it is only a concept.
The dogma mentioned above says every one needs to enter the Church.One can only enter the Church with the baptism of water and Catholic Faith. We cannot choose to enter with the baptism of desire etc.
Bro.Anthony:
Cantate Domino states that everyone must be united to the Church to be saved. Monsignor Fenton, who read and understood Latin, states that the Latin of Cantate Domino uses the term “aggregatio”, which refers to being united or aggregated. Cantate Domino does not state that it is an absolute necessity to be baptized by water to be saved.
Lionel:
Here is Cantate Domino again. See the text for yourself.
• “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church…can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her…No one…, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)
'joined with Her'
How can you be joined with Her?
Can a non Catholic know when he has the baptism of desire, is saved with invincible ignorance or has perfect contrition.
CONTINUED
Bro.Anthony:
”St. Pius XII uses the standard defacto-dejure analysis in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.”
That is incorrect. Pope Pius XII uses the common necessity of precept and necessity of means analysis as clearly explained by Monsignor Fenton.
Lionel:
The necessity of precept and means is a theological point and is different from the defacto-dejure analysis which is a philosophical reasoning used in theology. It helps one to avoid contradicting the Principle of Non Contradiction.
Bro.Anthony:
”The defacto- dejure analysis is used in theology.”
Please show me one theologian (pre-Vatican II) who uses this analysis in reference to the dogma.
Lionel:
The defacto-dejure analyis is used in many magisterial texts. It is common.
For example in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 it is used.
The Letter of the Holy Office refers to ‘the dogma’. The dogma indicates that every one needs to defacto enter the Catholic Church for salvation.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 refers to the baptism of desire . The baptism of desire is known only to God. We accept it in principle (de jure) in ‘certain circumstances’. There are no defacto known cases.
So here is the defacto-dejure analysis.
CONTINUED
CONTINUED
Bro.Anthony:
”So the Letter of the Holy Office supports Fr.Leonard Feeney on doctrine and is in accord with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.”
Really? Are we reading the same Holy Office Letter?
Lionel:
We are reading the same Letter of the Holy Office if you use the defacto-dejure analysis to avoid contradicting the Principle of Non Contradiction. This was as done by the theologians who wrote the magisterial texts.
We are not reading the same Letter of the Holy Office 1949 if you use a defacto-defacto analysis as did the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits there. They contradicted the Principle of Non Contradiction. They assumed that the baptism of desire was de facto known to us and so it was an exception to the dogma which said that de facto all need to enter the Church for salvation.
Bro.Anthony:
Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for disobedience to legitimate authority. The root of this disobedience was a doctrinal aberration on his part.
Lionel:
Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for disobedience. He did not go to Rome when called. The doctrine aberration was that of the Archbishop of Boston who taught that the baptism of desire etc were defacto exceptions to the dogma.
How could Fr.Leonard Feeney be in doctrinal aberration when the excommunication was lifted without him having to make any change in his writing. Neither was he asked to recant.
Bro.Anthony:
You make a contrary claim here to what is clear in the Holy Office Letter.
Lionel:
You need to specify by ‘condemn’ are you referring to his excommunication for disobedience or are you implying it was for heresy.
The Letter of the Holy Office was critical of the Archbishop of Boston. It refers to 'the dogma' which says every one needs to convert into the Church for salvation.(The Archbishop says no, there are defacto exceptions). It refers to implicit and not explicit to us baptism of desire.(For the Archbishop the baptism of desire had to be explcit to be an exception to the dogma). It does not state that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma etc.
To suggest that there are defacto exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is heresy.
Bro.Anthony:
The Holy Office Letter condemns Fr. Feeney. It does not support him.
Lionel:
This is the view of the liberal media. They have been repeating the lie over the years. This is also their political position. Catholics assume that this is the teaching of the Church. Catholics also assume that the baptism of desire etc are defacto known to us and so can be exceptions to the dogma .
Post a Comment