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).
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 ?
-Lionel Andrades
Photo of Msgr.Joseph Clifford Fenton from the blog WHOISLIKEUNTOGOD
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment