SSPX priests assume that those saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance are known to us in the present time and so are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Young priests with the SSPX have read Msgr. Joseph Fenton as part of their formation and so believe that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was a criticism of Fr. Leonard Feeney and not the Archbishop of Boston.
Msgr.Joseph Fenton, editor of The American Ecclesiastical Review defends the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and remains faithful to teachings of the traditional Magisterium. He had to be faithful to the teachings of the Church while the ecclesiatiscal magisterium, at least in the USA, was promoting a new doctrine which said that the dogma had exceptions. This was heresy. He was faced with the intellectually impossible task of reconciling the dogma which said every one needs to convert into the Church, with the new teaching, that there are defacto exceptions. How could he still be faithful to the tradition of previous popes and the confusion in the USA?
He bravely fought on. In his writings he focused on the dogma and so did not err but the gaps showed when it came to the issue of those non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.
He believed that Fr. Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for denying that there could be de facto exceptions to the dogma. It seems so, from his writings which refer to the priest being condemned.
He never mentioned that the dogma supported Fr. Leonard Feeney and there was no defacto known exception like the baptism of desire etc. He was using the defacto -defacto reasoning of the Archbishop. He never called attention to the defacto–dejure theme which was there in Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents.
Did he discover all this before he surprisingly resigned as editor of The American Ecclesiastical Review ?
He must have been up against the Principle of Non Contradiction numerous times.Finally he could have realised the error. He was interpreting the Letter of the Holy Office according to the Archbishop and the Jesuits of his time and assuming this was the teaching of the Holy See.
It was obvious to him that the dogma could not be reconciled with the new errors in Boston.(1). This was the error years before Vatican Council II.
There are those who can be saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire as exceptions and it would be known only to God. These exceptional cases could have,a genuine desire and charity and God could give them the grace, in these exceptional cases, to receive the baptism of water . This is possible. We do not know.
We do not know who these exceptional cases are on earth and so they do not contradict the ‘the dogma as it has been stated in the authoritative declarations of the ecclesiastical magisterium and even as it is expressed in the axiom or formula ‘Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.’ We do not even know if God permits these cases, hypothetical for us, to be saved after they receive the baptism of water.
In general, the ordinary means of salvation Msgr. Fenton knew was Catholic Faith and the baptism of water (Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II).
The Catholic Church and Salvation by Msgr. Fenton is published by the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). SSPX priests also assume that those saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance are known to us in the present time and so are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This error is there in the writings of Fr.Peter Scott and Fr.Francois Laisney of the SSPX.
Young priests with the SSPX have read Msgr. Fenton as part of their formation and so believe that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was a criticism of Fr. Leonard Feeney and not the Archbishop of Boston. The Letter does not mention that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma they have to imply this just as the Archbishop of Boston Richard Cushing.
One could also imply that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was a criticism of the Archbishop since it clearly endorsed 'the dogma', 'the infallible statement'. Doctrinally, Fr.Leonard Feeney was in agreement with 'the dogma' which does not mention any exceptions, implicit or explicit.
-Lionel Andrades.
1.
Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, pp. 124, 126: “The teaching that the dogma of the necessity of the Church for salvation admits of exceptions is, in the last analysis, a denial of the dogma as it has been stated in the authoritative declarations of the ecclesiastical magisterium and even as it is expressed in the axiom or formula ‘Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.’
1.
Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, pp. 124, 126: “The teaching that the dogma of the necessity of the Church for salvation admits of exceptions is, in the last analysis, a denial of the dogma as it has been stated in the authoritative declarations of the ecclesiastical magisterium and even as it is expressed in the axiom or formula ‘Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.’
Posts
16 comments:
This distinction of "de facto" and "de jure" is nowhere to be found in the writings of Ecclesiologists. I can only conclude that it was made up in order to support a bizarre interpretation of the dogma. Otherwise, please prove me wrong.
The meaning of the words de facto and de jure are found in the secular dictionary . You have noted it in detail earlier and posted it in a comment.
It is used in philosophy and is an aid to reason.
Theologians are free to use it just as they are free to use the terms explicit and implicit.
"De jure" is not interchangeable with "implicit" and "de facto" is not interchangeable with "explicit". Something can be "implicit", such as a thought, and at the same time be "de facto", that is, the thought has actually taken place in one's mind. On the other hand, something can be "explicit" such as the promulgation of a law and "de jure", that is, the law itself. You should be sticking with the Magisterial terms "explicit" and "implicit". If you do so, then you would be hard pressed to deny that the dogma encompasses explicit (baptism of water) and implicit (baptism of desire) ways of being "within" the Church.
"De jure" is not interchangeable with "implicit" and "de facto" is not interchangeable with "explicit".
You have provided the definition of de jure and defacto from the secular dictionary and I agreed with it in another comment.
Regarding the words implicit and explicit.
The baptism of water is explicit(defacto) and the baptism of desire is implicit (dejure).
"De Facto" can be applied to the Baptism of Desire as well. If God saves someone by Baptism of Desire, then it is "de facto" (in fact). Just because you and I don't see it does not make it otherwise. If a tree falls in a forest with nobody to see or hear it, it is still "de facto" a fallen tree.
The baptism of desire is never de facto known to us. We do not know a single case in the present time.
It is always de facto only for God.
Since it is never de facto for us it does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Since you are using "de facto" in two situations, then the term is not the appropriate one to use when making your distinctions. You should just stick to "explicit" and "implicit". And it is clear that the 1949 Holy Office letter incorporates those saved by the Baptism of Desire as a proper part of the meaning of the dogma, which is what you are denying.
The word de facto is used in only one situation with reference to the baptism of desire. The baptism of desire is defacto only for God. It is never defacto known to us.
For us it always, has to be de jure.
Since it always has to be implicit and never known to us, it cannot contradict the dogma.
The words explicit and implicit can also be used.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 mentions those who can be saved in certain circumstances with the baptism of desire.
It does not allege that the baptism of desire is known to us. It does not claim that the baptism of desire is explicit.
Neither does it say that the baptism of desire contradicts the dogma or is a part of the dogma.
Okay, then, let us stick to the terms "explicit" and "implicit" as these are the terms used by the Church and theologians.
The Holy Office Letter of 1949 begins as such:
This Supreme Sacred Congregration has followed very attentively the rise and the course of the grave controversy stirred up by certain associates of the "St. Benedict Center" and "Boston College" in regard to the interpretation fo that axiom: "Outside the Church there is no salvation."
Here the Holy Office is setting the stage and clearly indicates that the St. Benedict Center and Boston College (headed by Fr. Feeney, correct me if I am wrong) have a wrong understanding of the dogma. A bit later in the Letter, it states:
the august Pontiff.....deigned to give his approval, that the following explanations pertinent to the doctrine, and also that invitations and exhortations relevant to the discipline be given...
What then follows is an explanation of the dogma, which includes those saved by Baptism of Desire, explicit or implicit. So it is clear that the dogma incorporates those saved by Baptism of Desire regardless of whether individual cases are known to us or not. This is why those saved by Baptism of Desire are not contradictions to the dogma, that is, their situation forms part of the dogma.
To deny what I said above goes against the whole intent of the letter, that is, to clearly explain the dogma, including the cases where some are saved by Baptism of Desire.
Okay, then, let us stick to the terms "explicit" and "implicit" as these are the terms used by the Church and theologians.
Lionel> The words de facto and dejure are used in the Introduction to Dominus Iesus.
However the words explicit and implicit can also be used.
The Holy Office Letter of 1949 begins as such: This Supreme Sacred Congregration has followed very attentively the rise and the course of the grave controversy stirred up by certain associates of the "St. Benedict Center" and "Boston College" in regard to the interpretation fo that axiom: "Outside the Church there is no salvation."
Lionel :It refers to a controversy. The controversy included the Archbishop and Jesuits of Boston.
Here the Holy Office is setting the stage and clearly indicates that the St. Benedict Center and Boston College (headed by Fr. Feeney, correct me if I am wrong) have a wrong understanding of the dogma.
Lionel:It indicates here that there is a controversy.
A bit later in the Letter, it states: the august Pontiff.....deigned to give his approval, that the following explanations pertinent to the doctrine, and also that invitations and exhortations relevant to the discipline be given...
Lionel : Correct.
What then follows is an explanation of the dogma,
Lionel:Please cite the exact text again.Otherwise we will have just your view.
which includes those saved by Baptism of Desire, explicit or implicit.
Lionel: Cite the text please.
So it is clear that the dogma incorporates those saved by Baptism of Desire regardless of whether individual cases are known to us or not.
Lionel:It is not clear since you have not cited any text from the Letter.
This is why those saved by Baptism of Desire are not contradictions to the dogma, that is, their situation forms part of the dogma.
Lionel : You assume this even though there is no text which makes this claim.
To deny what I said above goes against the whole intent of the letter, that is, to clearly explain the dogma, including the cases where some are saved by Baptism of Desire.
Lionel: Please cite the text to support what you have said.
The Letter mentions the dogma. The dogma does not mention the baptism of desire.
The dogma says every one needs to convert into the Church for salvation. Even Msgr.Fenton says that the dogma accepts no exceptions.
So you assume that the exceptions are part of the dogma.
It was only since the 1940s that the baptism of desire etc was made an issue in the Catholic Church.In the past it was always known that the baptism of desire could only be implicit and so it did not contradict the dogma.
To accommodate the heresy of the Archbishop of Boston, that the baptism of desire was known and so an exception to the dogma, it could be said that the baptism of desire was part of the dogma.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 only mentions the baptism of desire. It does not say that it was a part of the dogma or an exception to the dogma.
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.
The doctrinal explanation of the dogma begins by pointing out that our Lord made it a command to His Apostles to teach those whom they come in contact with that they (the listeners) are to be incorporated by Baptism into the Church. However, the Letter implies that only those who willingly refuse to join the Church will be condemned.
This first part is the necessity of precept of belonging to the Church that Monsignor Fenton (and many theologians) has explicated.
To be continued....
Continued.....
After explaining that belonging to the Church is a necessity of precept, the Letter goes on to explain that the Church is also the means of salvation. This is what theologians mean when they teach that the Church is a necessity of means as well as precept.
"Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory."
Then the Letter goes on to teach that God has instituted helps to man's final end, that is, salvation (e.g., baptism, penance, etc.), not by intrinsic necessity, but only by Divine institution. However, the effects of those helps, necessary for one to be saved, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing (e.g., Baptism of Desire).
"And now here's the main point. The same of what was said in the preceding paragraph can also be said of the Church, that is, that belonging to her can be obtained through a desire and longing:
"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."
There you have it! One can be saved WITHOUT being actually incorporated as a member of the Church, that is, without having received the Sacrament of Baptism of Water. This teaching is part of the explanation of the true sense of the dogma that "Outside the Church, there is no salvation". Those who are saved by Baptism of Desire are WITHIN the Church. There are no exceptions indeed to the dogma because the doctrine of Baptism of Desire is an integral part of the dogma itself. Those who insist that the dogma only refers to water Baptism are excluding an essential point of the dogma. This was the main purpose of the Holy Office Letter, that is, to give the FULL meaning and explanation of the dogma against those who have restricted it to Baptism of Water and/or the explicit desire to be baptized, as in the case of catechumens.
When the dogma was defined the baptism of desire was not an issue. They knew about it. It was the Archbishop of Boston Richard Cushing who made it an issue. He said there was salvation outside the Church.http://www.thecrimson.com/article/19...d-from-jesuit/
He assumed there could be those saved with the baptism of desire etc. So this was the controversy at Boston.
The Holy Office intervened and said in the Letter 1949 that non Catholics can be saved with the baptism of desire. There were the means and precept.
The media in Boston reported that the Archbishop and the Holy See have corrected Fr. Leonard Feeney and the Church has changed its teaching on the dogma. It is no more interpreted according to the popes and saints and Fr. Leonard Feeney it was believed.
No exceptions. So this emerged as a controversy in the rest of the Church. Fr. Leonard Feeney and his supporters are criticized even today. Now however we know that the baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma. We do not know any case on earth.Then we realize that the Archbishop assumed that there were defacto known cases.To accommodate this wrong assumption it was said that the baptism of desire is included in the dogma.
Then what about the Letter of the Holy Office and Vatican Council II, LG 16?
The Letter of the Holy Office mentions that a person can be saved with a genuine desire. It does not claim that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma, a part of the dogma or the ordinary means of salvation.
Neither does LG 16 make this claim about invincible ignorance.
So those who make the archbishops error of assuming that the baptisms of desire is an exception to the dogma could assume that the baptism of desire is a part of the dogma. That the baptisms of desire are not defacto exceptions to the dogma could be an oversight of Mons. Joseph Fenton and Fr. William Most among others.
A person can be saved in principle; de jure, with the baptism of desire etc.De facto there are no known cases so it is not an exception to the dogma.
Cardinal Richard Cushing instead of issuing a clarification maintained the excommunication on Fr. Leonard Feeney and – along with the Jesuits inserted the ‘exceptions’ in Vatican Council II. To incorporate this ‘new understanding’ and Church teaching many could believe that the baptism of desire was a part of the dogma.
Once again, the whole point of the Holy Office letter was to clarify the sense of the dogma BECAUSE of the confusion regarding its interpretation. In the Letter's explanation, it clearly lays out the meaning starting with the requirement of entering the Church and then those circumstances which render entering the Church humanly impossible. To claim that the dogma is restricted to the Baptism of Water is to not read the Letter within its proper context, both in reference to the controversy coming from Fr. Feeney and in reference to the clear arrangement of the Letter itself.
Near the end of the Letter, it states:
"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."
It condemns the teaching spread by those supporting Fr. Feeney.
A bit later in the Letter:
"From these declarations which pertain to doctrine..."
What was said is Catholic doctrine.
Then:
"....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..."
The Holy Office seems to have agreed with the catechetical instruction proposed by the lawful authorities (e.g., Archbishop Cushing) and disagreed with Fr. Feeney.
That the Letter actually criticizes Archbishop Cushing does not hold water.
Bro.Anthony : Once again, the whole point of the Holy Office letter was to clarify the sense of the dogma BECAUSE of the confusion regarding its interpretation.
Lionel: Including the Richard Cushing error which also was an interpretation of the dogma.
Bro.Anthony : In the Letter's explanation, it clearly lays out the meaning starting with the requirement of entering the Church and then those circumstances which render entering the Church humanly impossible.
Lionel: Please cite the text you are refering to.
For example :‘the reqirement for entering the church’ is belief in ‘the dogma’, the ‘infalllible teaching ‘. The dogma and its interpretation was well known in the church for centuries. So the requirement for entering the Church did not include believing in the Cushing Error i.e de facto known baptism of desire and invincible ignorance.
‘those circumstances which render entering the Church humanly impossible.’
They would include the rejection of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with the Cushing Error of defacto known baptism of desire etc which the dogma does not mention.
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.
Bro.Anthony : To claim that the dogma is restricted to the Baptism of Water is to not read the Letter within its proper context, both in reference to the controversy coming from Fr. Feeney and in reference to the clear arrangement of the Letter itself.
Lionel: The dogma is restricted to the baptism of water since the text of the dogma does not mention the baptism of desire etc.Also, to convert into the Church (Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441) you need the baptism of water with Catholic Faith. One cannot choose to convert with the baptism of desire.
Since the baptism of desire is implicit it is not mentioned in the dogma.
Bro.Anthony: Near the end of the Letter, it states: "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." It condemns the teaching spread by those supporting Fr. Feeney.
Lionel: The article it refers to was written by Raymond Karam. He 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.
Bro.Anthony: A bit later in the Letter: "From these declarations which pertain to doctrine..." What was said is Catholic doctrine. Then: "....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..." The Holy Office seems to have agreed with the catechetical instruction proposed by the lawful authorities (e.g., Archbishop Cushing) and disagreed with Fr. Feeney.
Lionel: Correct, they could have assumed at that time that a cardinal could not teach error and heresy and believed his words against the priest, who was also expelled from his religious community.
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.
We now realize that the Cushing Error 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.
Bro.Anthony: That the Letter actually criticizes Archbishop Cushing does not hold water.
Lionel: 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.
Post a Comment