Reports on the internet say Fr.Leonard Feeney was condemned by the Holy Office for denying the possibility of some non Catholics being saved with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance and for teaching that every one needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church for salvation.These critics assume that implicit baptism of desire is visible and so an exception to the dogma.
Implicit baptism of desire does not contradict the dogma so how could it be an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The excommunication was lifted without him having to recant or make any changes in the book The Bread of Life.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 does not state that Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for saying implicit baptism of desire does not exist.Neither does the Letter mention that implicit baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma.
Fr.Leonard Feeney accepted the baptism of desire per se, in theory and that it would be followed with the baptism of water. He would deny that the baptism of desire was the ordinary means of salvation or that it was a substitute for the baptism of water or that it contradicted the dogma.
In The Bread of Life he recognizes the possibility of a catechumen who dies before visibly receiving the baptism of water as having a genuine desire and charity. He believed in these exceptional cases, known only to God, God would provide the grace for this person to receive the baptism of water. These cases would be unknown to us and only explicit for God. He does not deny in theory the baptism of desire as it is alleged in the media.
So the Letter of the Holy Office did not ‘condemn’ him as it is being continously reported for many years.Those who make this claim imply that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 contradicted the dogma and its centuries old interpretation.There can only be implicit baptism of desire and it is never explicitly known.
Neither was the Archbishop of Boston ‘condemned’ when he assumed that the baptism of desire was explicitly known and so contradicted Fr.Leonard Feeney, St.Benedict Center and the dogma which was an authoritative teaching for centuries.
Fr.Leonard Feeney however was condemned by the Archbishop of Boston. Fr.Feeney called the Archbishop of Boston a ‘heretic’.Since to deny a dogma in public with alleged explicilty known baptism of desire could warrant automatic excommunication.A religious who knowingly makes this claim in public is automatically excommunicated. This is heresy and to knowingly offer Mass or receive the Eucharist in this condition is another mortal sin.
Apologists Msgr.Joseph Fenton and Fr.William Most could have unknowingly believed that implicit baptism of desire contradicted the dogma. Others , to compensate for this irrational error say that the baptism of desire etc are part of the dogma. Others just say its ‘ a development of doctrine’.All imply that the baptism of desire is visible and known to us in particular cases.
The Society of St.Pius X website says Fr.Leonard Feeney was ‘condemned’ by the Holy Office and they support their view with theology not knowing that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are not exceptions to the dogma. The SSPX has been informed. Without a public correction of the error this is an impediment to the Traditional Latin Mass. The SSPX, FSSP and many others are in agreement with the liberal EWTN who make the same charge against the innocent priest.
Some priests in Rome, non SSPX, who offer the Novus Ordo Mass in Italian, affirm in public the dogma Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441 and accept implicit baptism of desire as taught by the Council of Trent.-Lionel Andrades
DID THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949 CONTRADICT THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS? NO
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/12/did-letter-of-holy-office-1949.html#links
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment