Informed Catholics still assume that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma outside the church no salvation and to Vatican Council II (LG 14,AG 7)
They do not seem aware of the defacto-dejure reasoning present in magisterial texts.This reasoning would have to be used also in the case of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
Since they did not use the defacto dejure reasoning they could assume that the teaching of the baptism of desire is de fide and since it was considered a defacto exception to the dogma by the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits they also had to accept it as a teaching of the Church. They would sense that this was a contradiction of the dogma.
Fr.William Most defends the error in one of his books translated into Italian. He says that some people say that the Church must have made an error once, either, when it issued the dogma or when the Letter of the Holy Office admited there were exceptions, like the baptism of desire.
Msgr.Joseph Fenton and Fr.William Most are good apologists but they did not see the error being made by the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits with the support of the secular media. Or if they knew about it they did not write about it.Maybe Mnsgr.Fenton realized it as a quotation of his could indicate.
DID MSGR.JOSEPH C.FENTON DISCOVER THOSE SAVED IN INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE AND THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE ARE NOT EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOGMA ?
Due to the Cushing Error Catholics assume that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are part of the dogma. The dogma does not mention any exceptions. The baptism of desire and invincible ignorance only became an issue in the 1940s.
-Lionel Andrades
IN ANALYSING THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949 YOU ARE USING A DEFACTO-DEJURE ANALYSIS OR A DEFACTO-DEFACTO ANALYSIS.WHETHER YOU KNOW IT OR NOT YOUR USING ONE OF THE TWO
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/11/in-analysing-letter-of-holy-office-1949.html
CONFUSION OVER THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/11/confusion-over-letter-of-holy-office.html
REMEMBER THAT THE REPORT BY FR.WILLIAM MOST ON EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS IS NOT THE OFFICIAL TEACHING OF THE CHURCH: IT CONTAINS ERRORS AND HERESY
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/11/remember-that-report-by-frwilliam-most.html
CARDINAL RATZINGER DID NOT VIOLATE THE PRINCIPLE OF NON CONTRADICTION AS CATHOLICS UNITED FOR THE FAITH IMPLY
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/11/cardinal-ratzinger-did-not-violate
IN ANALYSING THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949 YOU ARE USING A DEFACTO-DEJURE ANALYSIS OR A DEFACTO-DEFACTO ANALYSIS.WHETHER YOU KNOW IT OR NOT YOUR USING ONE OF THE TWO
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/11/in-analysing-letter-of-holy-office-1949.html
CONFUSION OVER THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/11/confusion-over-letter-of-holy-office.html
REMEMBER THAT THE REPORT BY FR.WILLIAM MOST ON EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS IS NOT THE OFFICIAL TEACHING OF THE CHURCH: IT CONTAINS ERRORS AND HERESY
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/11/remember-that-report-by-frwilliam-most.html
CARDINAL RATZINGER DID NOT VIOLATE THE PRINCIPLE OF NON CONTRADICTION AS CATHOLICS UNITED FOR THE FAITH IMPLY
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/11/cardinal-ratzinger-did-not-violate
Posts
6 comments:
No. Monsignor Fenton never said nor took it for granted that Baptism of Desire was an exception to the dogma. He understood it to be part of the explanation of the dogma. The dogma states that "Outside the Church, there is no salvation". It does not state that "Outside Water Baptism, there is no salvation". From what I read in a previous post of yours, you push the idea that everybody, no exceptions whatsoever, requires Water Baptism before they die in order to be saved. This is manifestly false from the teaching of the Holy Office Letter and previous Church pronouncements.
Catechism of St. Pius X (issued before 1940):
Question #17:
"Q: Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?"
"A: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire."
Question #27:
"Q: Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church?"
"A: No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church."
Question #29:
"Q: But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?"
"A: If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation."
St. Pius X's catechism does not agree with your position.
Bro.Anthony : No. Monsignor Fenton never said nor took it for granted that Baptism of Desire was an exception to the dogma.
Lionel :He did not think it an exception to the dogma. He was trying to reconcile explicit baptism of desire, as the Archbishop implied, with the dogma that admits no exceptions. Difficult task!
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.’
Bro.Anthony : He understood it to be part of the explanation of the dogma.
Lionel : He could not reject explicitly known baptism of desire so he said it was part of the dogma ?
Bro.Anthony : The dogma states that "Outside the Church, there is no salvation". It does not state that "Outside Water Baptism, there is no salvation".
Lionel :Yes Outside the Church there is no salvation includes those saved with the baptism of desire and the baptism of water and the baptism of blood (CCC 846 etc).
However defacto there are not three baptisms but one. We cannot administer the baptism of desire or blood. Also only God can judge who has the baptism of water or blood.
So Outside the Church No Salvation means every one with no known exceptions on earth defacto needs Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation.
Bro.Anthony: From what I read in a previous post of yours, you push the idea that everybody, no exceptions whatsoever, requires Water Baptism before they die in order to be saved.
Lionel: I make the de facto-dejure distinction.
De facto every one on earth needs the baptism of water given to adults with Catholic Faith.
De jure, in principle and known only to God and unknown to us in the present times, a non Catholic can be saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire in a manner known only to God.
Bro.Anthony :This is manifestly false from the teaching of the Holy Office Letter and previous Church pronouncements.
Lionel :The Holy Office Letter and Church pronouncements also include the defacto-dejure distinction in the text even though it is not mentioned by name. If this distinction is not made it leads to confusion and contradiction.
Bro.Anthony : Catechism of St. Pius X (issued before 1940): Question #17: "Q: Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?" "
A: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire."
Lionel: We accept the possibility of someone being saved with the baptism of desire ,martyrdom or an act of perfect contrition. Since God is not limited to the Sacraments.
We can also accept the possibility that hose with a genuine desire and perfect charity could be given the grace, in these rare cases ‘in certain circustances’(Letter of the Holy Office 1949) to also receive the baptism of water.
In general all people on earth with no exception defacto need the baptism of water and Catholic Faith for salvation.
Bro.Anthony :
Question #27: "Q: Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church?" "
A: No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church."
Lionel: Yes de facto, in reality, practically, no one on earth can be saved without the baptism of water and Catholic Faith.
Bro.Anthony : Question #29: "Q: But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?" "
A: If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is See more... indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation."
Lionel: In ‘certain circumstances’(Letter of the Holy Office 1949) and known only to God a man can be saved in the above mentioned way.
In general the ordinary means of salvation is Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.(LG 14,AG 7 Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441 etc)
Bro.Anthony: St. Pius X's catechism does not agree with your position.
If you also make the de facto dejure distinction there would be no confusion and you would be be able to express your self with precision.
I do not disagree with the St.Pius X Catechism.
Cardinal Bellarmine gives the true explanation: “When we say, Out of the Church there is no salvation, it must be understood of those who belong to the Church neither in fact nor in desire, as theologians commonly teach concerning Baptism.”
(The Church of Christ – An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise, pg. 242, E. Sylvester Berry, D.D., B. Herder Book Co., 1927, Emphasis in original)
In certain particular circumstances, for example, in the case of invincible ignorance or of incapability, actual membership in the Church can be supplied by the desire for this membership. It is not necessary that this be explicitly present; it can be included in a willingness and readiness to fulfill the will of God………..Whoever inculpably remains outside the Church can be saved provided he belong to the Church through faith and charity, or through perfect contrition.
(A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, A.D. Tanquerey, Translated by Right Rev. Msgr. John J. Byrnes, pgs. 138-139, Desclee Company, 1959, Note that it was translated into English and published in 1959, but the original by the author was before 1959)
So much for the Archbishop Cushing error. The belief that those saved by Baptism of Desire are included in the dogma existed way before His Excellency took office. Therefore, please stop spreading your theological error regarding the dogma.
Bro.Anthony : Cardinal Bellarmine gives the true explanation: “When we say, Out of the Church there is no salvation, it must be understood of those who belong to the Church neither in fact nor in desire, as theologians commonly teach concerning Baptism...
Lionel: We agree that a person can be saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.
Do we agree that in principle, as a possibility that this can happen in certain circumstances and these cases will be unknown to us ?
Bro.Anthony : So much for the Archbishop Cushing error.
Lionel: The Archbishop Cushing error is not that there just is the possibility of persons being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire but that these cases are explicitly known to us and so they contradict the dogma.
Are you saying that these cases are explicitly known to us ?
Bro.Anthony : The belief that those saved by Baptism of Desire are included in the dogma existed way before His Excellency took office.
There is no magisterial text which mentions this. Also it was not an issue before the 1940’s. Cardinal Bellarmine does not refer to an explicitly known baptism of desire etc.
The dogma outside the church also does not mention it.
To accommodate the error of Richard Cushing and which was not corrected by Mons. Joseph Fenton, it is being said that the baptism of desire is a part of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Implicit baptism of desire which Cardinal Bellarmine refers to is not an exception to the dogma so they did not have to mention it.
Explicit baptism of desire is an irrationality and is mistaken to be a part of the dogma…
Bro.Anthony :...spreading theological errors.
Lionel: That the baptism of desire is explicit and an exception to the dogma is a widespread theological error and has not been part of the deposit of the faith.
Post a Comment