Thursday, December 8, 2011

CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS OF ENGLAND AND WALES AGREE THAT THERE IS NO VISIBLE BAPTISM OF DESIRE : breakthrough in salvation dogma, back to centuries old interpretation.


Daphne McLeod’s statement over time to reverberate throughout Catholic Church

The Conference of Catholic Bishops of England and Wales (CCBEW) agree there is no visible baptism of desire, it is learnt, they are not to issue a denial.They are in agreement with the statement of the English school teacher. Daphne McLeod said that there can be those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire and this does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.She was not talking theology but making a simple common sense observation.The English bishops have no clarification to issue on her statement and neither on that of the Southwark Vocation Director Fr.Stephen Langley.It follows that implicit baptism of desire and those saved in invincible ignorance are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

In the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston ,Pope Pius XII referred to ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible teaching’.The dogma indicates all non Catholics need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation (to avoid Hell). The dogma does not mention any exceptions such as the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance.Since they are implicit and not visible to us they cannot be defacto exceptions.

So Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance/good conscience) is not an exception to the dogma.It does not contradict the centuries-old interpretation of outside the church there is no salvation.

In principle (de jure) it is accepted that there can be people saved with the baptism of desire, invincible ignorance, good conscience, imperfect communion with the church, ‘the seeds of the Word’(Vatican Council II). De facto we do not know any such case and so they do not contradict the dogma.They do not contradict the interpretation of the popes, saints and Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston, who was not excommunicated for heresy. The excommunication of this courageous priest, was lifted during his lifetime without him having to recant.He was disobedient to the Archbishop of Boston who suggested that there was an explicitly-known baptism of desire which was an exception to the dogma.

The Archbishop rejected the traditional defacto-dejure analysis of magisterial texts and used an irrational defacto-defacto philosophical model.

In principle (dejure) we can accept that ‘God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments (CCC 1257).’ and ‘ the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament '(CCC 1258) can be there. These cases are not explicitly known to us. De facto we do not know any such case on earth.

In principle,dejure we can accept that ‘the Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptized are baptized by their death,’(CCC 1258) in reality only God can judge these cases. They are de facto known only to God.

Catechumens in principle can receive salvation which ‘ they were not able to receive through the sacrament’ if they die before receiving the baptism of water’(CCC 1259). We accept this dejure. De facto we do not know any case so it does not contradict the dogma or Ad Gentes 7 which says all need to enter the Church with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.

In principle, dejure ‘every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved ‘(CCC 1260). De facto the ordinary way of salvation is Catholic Faith with the baptism of water (Ad Gentes 7, Lumen Gentium 14).

In principle we do not exclude from salvation ‘ all united to the Church only by implicit desire’ (Letter of the Holy Office 1949) and ‘reprove...those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion’ i.e every one with no exception needs to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation and there are defacto no exceptions.(Letter of the Holy Office 1949, (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution, , in , n. 1641 ff.; also Pope Pius IX in the encyclical letter, , in , n. 1677).

Nowhere in the Letter of the Holy Office is it said that the baptism of desire is visible and so an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Neither does Vatican Council II or the Catechism of the Catholic Church make this claim.

The Letter is affirming 'the dogma', the 'infallible statement'i.e the ‘strict interpretation’ of outside the church there is no salvation.  It was defined ex cathedra and so it is 'infallilble'. The Letter also affirms implicit baptism of desire. If implicit baptism of desire is considered explicit and known to us, then the Letter would contradict itself.This would be an irrational defacto-defacto analysis.


Similarly Lumen Gentium 14 says everyone needs to enter the Church, ‘the necessity of faith and baptism’.Lumen Gentium 15 and 16 refer to those saved implicitly and who are not formal members of the Church. They can be saved of course in principle and are defacto not known to us.Specific cases are known only to God. Since they are not explicitly known to us they do not contradict Lumen Gentium 14.Here we are using the defacto-dejure analysis.


If you considered implicit salvation as explicitly known to us then Lumen Gentium 15-16 would contradict Lumen Gentium 14. This would be the defacto-defacto reasoning.


Fr.Leonard Feeney was saying that every one de facto needs to enter the Church for salvation and in principle we do not know any exceptions of the baptism of water etc.

The English Cardinals and bishops recognize that every one needs to  enter the Church for salvation and there are no visible cases of the baptism of desire. So those saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
-Lionel Andrades
December 8, 2011. Feast of the Immaculate Conception.