Wednesday, October 12, 2011

CATHOLIC CULTURE SUGGESTS THOSE SAVED IN INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE OR THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE ARE EXPLICITLY KNOWN


False Ecumenism is based on irrational non Catholic interpretations contrary to Vatican Council II, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the statements of popes and saints.

Is 'Ecumenism' a Bad Word? by Matt C. Abbott in Catholic Culture suggests that Lumen Gentium 16 on invincible ignorance contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. We know that there is no Catholic Magisterial text which states this. He could assume the error of Wikipedia, the encyclopaedia on the internet, is a magisterial teaching.

It is also irrational- how can those saved in invincible ignorance be an exception to the dogma when we do not know any explicit case of a person saved in invincible ignorance.Similarly no text in Vatican Council II or other Magisterial document states, those saved with the baptism of desire are explicitly known to us and so contradicts the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation. Only God knows who is saved with the baptism of desire we do not know any case.
So why is ecumenism so controversial? One central issue is the oft-misinterpreted and misrepresented teaching extra ecclesiam nulla salus (“outside the Church there is no salvation”). The Catechism quotes Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium on this subject: “Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation…. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or remain in it. This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and His Church” (nn. 846-847).-Matt Abbott, Catholic Culture
Nowhere in the Catechism of the Catholic Church or Vatican Council II is it said that the baptism of desire is explicit and so contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.



The Catechism goes on to quote Vatican II’s teaching on what is known as Baptism of desire: “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation” (n. 847).
He then suggests that all who are saved - are saved through Jesus and the Church as if this contradicts the thrice defined dogma. The dogma indicates  all who are saved are saved through formal,visible entry in the Church. This is the only known way of salvation for all people. If someone is saved through the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance it is known only to God. We do not know a single case in the present times. We do not even know if a single such case exists. We can only accept it as a possibility. Since it is implicit it does not contradict the dogma as Catholic Culture suggests.

In summary, we know that everyone’s salvation – Catholic and non-Catholic – is through the Catholic Church, either as faithful members of the Church (Baptism of water), or as persons who give their life for Christ (Baptism of blood), or who would belong to the Catholic Church if they knew it was the one, true Church founded by Jesus Christ (Baptism of desire).
He then says Fr. Leonard Feeney was wrong to deny the baptism of desire and the baptism of blood. When we do not know a single case in the present times of someone saved with the baptism of desire how could Fr. Leonard Feeney  be wrong.The dogma does not mention the baptism of desire. Neither does the Catechsim or Vatican Council II mention it being explicit.So why should Fr.Leonard Feeney accept the baptism of desire as contradicting the dogma? There is no de facto case of the baptism of desire or blood that we know of or can judge. If the Church declares someone a martyr (baptism of blood) we accept it. In general however we do not know any case in the present times. Neither does the writer or Catholic Culture.We cannot meet someone on the street saved with the baptism of desire or blood. 



There are, however, a considerable number of “traditional” Catholics, known affectionately as “Feeneyites” (followers of the late Fr. Leonard J. Feeney and his rigorist and thereby erroneous interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus), who deny Baptisms of blood and desire. They often cite various quotations (mostly out of context) from early Popes, saints, and councils to “confirm” their erroneous position that Baptism of blood and Baptism of desire are false teachings.
Then he suggests that the Church Fathers taught the baptism of desire and blood as exceptions. Here he makes another liberal interpretation and assumes it is magisterial. The Church Fathers did teach the existence of the baptism of desire etc but knew it was implicit and none of them claimed that it was an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Yet we see that this assertion is simply ludicrous. Indeed, Baptism of blood and/or desire was taught by such early Church fathers as Iranaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, and Augustine, and also by the Council of Trent. And the teaching of Baptism of desire was reaffirmed by Pope Pius XII in his 1943 encyclical Mystici Corporis and by the Vatican’s Holy Office in 1949. So much for the false assertion that this teaching was “invented” by the Second Vatican Council!
So the Church Councils when defining extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Cantate Domino etc) do not mention the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance as an exception to the dogma.


Neither does Vatican Council II claim it is an exception to the dogma. However Catholic Culture interprets Vatican Council II with this error.


The popes encouraged ecumenism knowing that non Catholic religions were false paths to salvation. It is the ecumenism of Catholic Culture  which refutes this teaching of the Church. It is not only a false ecumenism it is heresy.It is the rejection of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and also Vatican Council II.


If those saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance are explicitly known as the writer suggests then it would contradict Lumen Gentium 14 and Ad Gentes 7 of Vatican Council II which says all need to enter the Church with the Catholic Faith and the baptism of water. This is the ordinary means of salvation (Redemptoris Missio 55).

Catholic Culture suggests that Vatican Council II contradicts itself (1). Lumen Gentium 14 contradicts Lumen Gentium 16.-Lionel Andrades
____________________________________________

1.




Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church.-Lumen Gentium 14

Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.-Lumen Gentium 16 
Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door.-Ad Gentes 7 
Trinity Communications of Jeff Mirus and Catholic Culture is a legal entity that is spreading falsehood about the Catholic Faith.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/09/trinity-communications-is-legal-entity.html

Photo : Ecumenical Vespers at St.Pauls Basilica Outside the Walls, Rome