Friday, December 30, 2011

CHURCH TEXT IS CRITICAL OF THE ARCHBISHOP OF BOSTON : REFERS TO IMPLICIT AND NOT EXPLICIT (TO US) BAPTISM OF DESIRE

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 addressed to the Archbishop of Boston mentions the single word that is critical of Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston. The Letter refers to ‘implicit baptism of desire’. Implicit baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The Archbishop’s entire criticism of Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center was on this single point. He believed that those saved with the baptism of desire were exceptions to the dogma, they contradicted Fr.Leonard Feeney and the traditional interpretation of the dogmatic teaching. He assumed that there was not implicit but explicit-to-us baptism of desire so it contradicted the dogma. The Letter of the Holy Office does not mention a visible- to- us baptism of desire.(1)

Assuming Fr. Leonard Feeney and St. Benedict Center rejected implicit baptism of desire they are still not denying the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Since implicit baptism of desire is known only to God .It is not an issue.It is not a contradiction of the dogma outside the church there is no salvation.(2)

Fr.Leonard Feeney rejected an explicitly known baptism of desire. He opposed the Archbishop.He was disobedient to ecclesiastical authority.The Letter of the Holy Office criticizes Fr. Feeney for disobedience.(3)


Fr. Leonard Feeney said that it was a conscience issue for him and he could not obey the Archbishop or the Jesuits, who were teaching that there was salvation outside the church. In other words they were saying that there could be known cases of persons saved with explicitly known baptism of desire and so these were exceptions to the dogma on salvation.

The Letter of the Holy Office refers to implicit baptism of desire and this is a correction of  Archbishop Richard Cushing and the Jesuits in Boston.
-Lionel Andrades
1.


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 wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949 (Emphasis added)
2.
With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire,..-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
3.
and continue to exist as a source of discord and rebellion against ecclesiastical authority and as a source of the disturbance of many consciences.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949

CHURCH TEXT CONDEMNING FR.LEONARD FEENEY OR THE ARCHBISHOP RICHARD J.CUSHING ?

A sedevacantist website has posted the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 with the headline Church texts Condemning Fr.Feeney. He could also have said Church Text Condemning the Archbishop of Boston for heresy.

1.The Letter of the Holy Office does not approve or mention a baptism of desire which is known to us and so could be an exception to the dogma.The archbishop and the Jesuits rejected the teaching of Fr. Leonard Feeney suggesting  that there were defacto exceptions to the dogma.

2.Instead the Letter mentions implicit baptism of desire. Implicit desire is not an exception to the dogma.

3. The Letter mentions 'the dogma'. The text of 'the dogma' says every one needs to be visible member of the Church for salvation. There is no mention of explictly- known baptism of desire.

4. The Letter mentions ‘only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith ’. This does not include those with the baptism of desire for the practical reason that we do not know any case.So the baptism of desire is not an exception as the Archbishop held.

5. The Letter of the Holy Office says 'submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation’. De facto every needs to enter the Church. The baptism of desire is not a known exception. This is also a criticism of the Archbishop.

Is the Letter of the Holy Office a 'condemnation' of the Archbishop of Boston with his explicitly known baptism of desire and invincible ignorance being defacto exceptions to the dogma ? 
-Lionel Andrades

LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE

Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.

However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.

Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be incorporated by baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth.

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 wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.

Discussing the members of which the Mystical Body is-composed here on earth, the same august Pontiff says: "Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed."

Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after "Rome has spoken" they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church "only by an unconscious desire." Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.

In sending this letter, I declare my profound esteem, and remain,

Your Excellency's most devoted,

F. Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani.

A. Ottaviani, Assessor.

(Private); Holy Office, 8 Aug., 1949.

________________________________________

Provided Courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
5817 Old Leeds Road
Irondale, AL 35210