Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) also assumes these cases are known to us indicating that the Letter of the Holy Office made a mistake.
If the baptism of desire is explicit according to them then the Letter made a mistake because these cases are known only to God, we do not know a single such case and they do not contradict Fr.Leonard Feeney or any of his religious communities.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 did not make a mistake when it said that every one needs to be incorporated into the Catholic Church as a member.Those saved with implicit desire are not exceptions.Those saved with explicit baptism of desire are exceptions and we don’t know any such case.Since the baptism of desire can never ever be explicit.
When the Council of Trent referred to implicit desire it was referring to implicit desire since implicit desire can never ever be explicit for us.
If the Letter refers to only to in principle, implicit, accepted in theory baptism of desire then it has not made a mistake.
When Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J, Secretary of the CDF misreads the Letter and assumes that those saved with an implicit desire, are explicit, so every one in reality (de facto) does not ‘have to be incorporated into the church’. This is a mistake. It would then seem that the Letter made a mistake.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 supports Fr.Leonard Feeney’s community in Los Angeles since implicit desire can only be accepted as a possibility and it is irrelevant to the literal traditional interpretation of the dogma as held by Fr.Leonard Feeney and St.Benedict Center,mentioned in the Letter.
If the Letter was criticizing Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center because they assumed that implicit desire was explicit and so an exception to the dogma then Cardinal Francesco Marchetti-Selvaggiani made a mistake.
So when Cardinal Ladaria writes that the Letter was critical of Fr.Leonard Feeney for denying the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance, since these cases are explicit, the cardinal would be saying that the Magisterium (Letter of the Holy Office 1949) made a mistake.
If Fr.Leonard Feeney said that there is no baptism of desire in theory or practice ( in fact), it is irrelevant to his ‘rigorist interpretation’ of the dogma.
Based on this error of Cardinal Ladaria in position papers of the International Theological Commission (ITC), Mons. Raffaelo Martinelli, the bishop of Frascati, Italy has made apologetic material available on the internet. It indicates that we can have the hope of babies going to Heaven in general , without the baptism of water and with Original Sin on their soul. As a reference, the Italian bishop has cited the ITC paper approved by Cardinal Ladaria, as President of the ITC. It speculates that we know people on earth who are saved with implicit desire and invincible ignorance and these are explicit exceptions in the present times. So those with persons with Original Sin are able to go to Heaven.
This is the Richard Cushing Error adapted by Cardinal Ladaria and Bishop Martinelli. The Archbishop of Los Angeles José Horacio Gomez seems unaware of it too otherwise he would have allowed all his religious comunities to (1) hold the literal interpretation of the dogma, (2) reject explicitly known implicit desire and (3) accept in principle, an implicit desire, which is always implicit.
Why cannot all the Franciscan, Dominicans, Jesuits and other Catholic religious communities in Los Angeles hold the literal interpretation of the dogma similar to the community of Fr.Leonard Feeney there who are not recognized and who have not asked for recognition ?
If they did ask for recognition the Archbishop’s Office could say: “You know there has been a development of doctrine and you have to accept that there are non Catholics today who could be in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire and so everyone today does not have to enter the Church for salvation.This is clear from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 of Pope Pius XII”.
Do we really know people today saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire ? Or is this just accepted in principle, in theory ?-Lionel Andrades
Posts
1 comment:
Father Feeney said teach the Faith and leave the mercies to God. If we profess to known the justice and mercy of God in situations not even known to us as fact, such as implicit Baptism of Desire and Invincible Ignorance to be absolutely true, we not only could incur God's wrath but suffer dearly for being so presumptuous on matters of Salvation. Only proclaimed Saints are known to be in Heaven. ALL others eternal fate is known to God alone.
We do even know for sure if a person that believes in No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church and the necessity of Baptism of Water as necessary for Salvation will be worthy of Heaven, let only the implicit hope of those that might die from Invincible Ignorance or Baptism of Desire.
Post a Comment