Monday, October 31, 2011

SSPX DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE FOR THE CONDEMNATION OF FR.LEONARD FEENEY FOR HERESY

Implicit or ‘explicitly known’ baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus since we do not know a single such case.

The SSPX and Catholic Traditionalists are opposed to the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX with their exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Instead of correcting their  error on the internet they stil maintain a webspage which claims that the Holy Office condemned Fr. Leonard Feeney’s teaching.

The Letter of the Holy Office supported Fr.Leonard Feeney by referring to ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible teaching’.The dogma Cantate Domino, Council of Florence indicates all non Catholics in Boston and the rest of the world are oriented to Hell unless they convert into the Catholic Church. Yet the SSPX claims that the Letter of the Holy Office condemned Fr.Leonard Feeney.(1).

True in principle. De facto we do not know any such case. So it does not contradict the text of the dogma. It does not contradict Fr.Leonard Feeney. He said that every one on earth with no exception needs to be a visible member of the Church. We don’t know of any exception.True in principle. De facto we do not know any such case. So it does not contradict the text of the dogma. It does not contradict Fr.Leonard Feeney. He said that every one on earth with no exception needs to be a visible member of the Church. We don’t know of any exception.
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance, God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wants his will to be conformed to the Will of God.
A person can be saved in invincible ignorance and with the baptism of desire but since it is implicit it is unknown to us. So why should Fr. Leonard Feeney or the SSPX suggest that this is an exception to the dogmatic teaching ?. Every one with no exception needs to be an explicit, formal member of the Catholic Church for salvation and we know there are no exceptions of the baptism of desire or being saved invincible ignorance? There are no defacto known exceptions. Hypotherically we accept the possibility. We do not know of any such case in the present times.
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.
The Letter is not saying that being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire is explicitly known and so it contradicts Fr.Leonard Feeney. The Letter is no where saying he is condemned.

With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally as well in every religion. (Letter to the Archbishop of Boston, August 8, 1949).
Fr. Leonard Feeney rejected an explicitly known baptism of desire and believed this was not an exception to the dogma. Neither do we know any case of a person saved with an implicit baptism of desire. So we reject both implicit and ‘explicitly known’ baptism of desire as being exceptions to the dogma.

It is important to make the distinction : Hypothetically we accept that it is possible and known to God only, that a person can be saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance. De facto there are no such known cases.

So Fr.Leonard Feeney was not denying the possibility of someone being saved with the baptism of desire but he is denying that the baptism of desire in any form can be an exception to the dogma as it was being alleged at that time. There is no such baptism of desire.

To imply that there is an explicitly known baptism of desire which can contradict the dogma is the heresy of the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Jesuits of  Boston College and today of the SSPX and some traditionalists.-Lionel Andrades

________________________________________________________

1.

Conclusion

Let us finally quote the letter of the Holy Office condemning Fr. Feeney’s teaching:

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. However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance, God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wants his will to be conformed to the Will of God. These things are clearly taught in the dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943 (Mystici Corporis)... he mentions those who are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer "by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation; but on the other hand, he states that they are in a condition "in which they cannot be sure of their salvation" since "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church!" With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally as well in every religion. (Letter to the Archbishop of Boston, August 8, 1949). Fr.Feeney and Catholic Doctrine
Photo of the Sisters of St.Benedict Sisters one of Fr.Leonard Feeney's communities who have been granted canonical status by the Catholic Church in the diocese of Worcester,USA.