Catholics also assume that the baptism of desire is defacto known to us and so is an exception to the dogma
Anthony :
"It does not say that the baptism of desire is explicitly known to us.”
I don’t think anybody claims that the baptism of desire is known to us (e.g., Archbishop Cushing). If so, please prove it to me demonstrating that they said this explicitly (and not by implication).
Lionel:
In a prepared statement for the press the former Jesuit added: "The conscience difficulty is that the diocese of Boston, under the auspices of Archbishop Cushing, and Boston College, under the auspices of Father John J. McEloney, S.J., both notably ignorant in the field of Catholic theology ... are teaching that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church." - Father Feeney Is Dismissed From Jesuit Order by Rome
The Archbishop and the Jesuits were teaching that there was salvation outside the church. In other words, that the baptism of desire and invincible e ignorance were exceptions to the dogma. They could only be exceptions if the baptism of desire etc were known to us in particular cases.
If the baptism of desire is not known to us then how can they be defacto exceptions to the dogma?
Implicit baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma.
So the Archbishop was implying that the baptism of desire is visible and known to us in particular cases.
Anthony :
Obviously, in the case of a catechumen, if we were certain that he had explicit baptism of desire, then there would be no need (other to fulfil Our Lord’s precept) to pursue getting him baptized. If we would pursue getting a catechumen baptized, how much more so would we pursue to get a non-catechumen baptized?
Lionel:
This is all very well for a conceptual discussion on this issue. However we also have to note that we do not know defacto, any case of a catechumen…
Anthony :
The terms “explicit” and “implicit” are applied in reference to the person’s awareness of his desire to be baptized and not to whether Baptism of Desire is known or not known to us. ”
Lionel:
The terms explicit and implicit can be used conceptually. However we have to recognize that it is all conceptual. We do not know any defacto case of implicit baptism of desire. Since the baptism of desire is never ever explicit for us.
Anthony :
"….every one needs to be a visible member of the Church for salvation i.e. every one needs Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.”
Cantate Domino, for example, does not teach Baptism of Water as an absolute necessity. It is true that Our Lord commanded the Apostles to go out and baptize.
Lionel:
Here is Cantate Domino.
• “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church…can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her…No one…can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.) -Catholicism.org
Anthony :
However, the necessity to be baptized by water is only a necessity of precept. If the precept is not promulgated and made known to a person, then that person cannot be held guilty for not fulfilling that precept.
Lionel:
The necessity of being baptized by water is a necessity of means and precept and the difference between the two will be judged by God only.
For you and me it is only a concept.
The dogma mentioned above says every one needs to enter the Church.One can only enter the Church with the baptism of water and Catholic Faith. We cannot choose to enter with the baptism of desire etc.
Anthony :
Cantate Domino states that everyone must be united to the Church to be saved. Monsignor Fenton, who read and understood Latin, states that the Latin of Cantate Domino uses the term “aggregatio”, which refers to being united or aggregated. Cantate Domino does not state that it is an absolute necessity to be baptized by water to be saved.
Lionel :
Here is Cantate Domino again. See the text for yourself.
• “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church…can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her…No one…, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)
'joined with Her'-Cantate Domino
How can you be' joined with Her' ? Can a non Catholic know when he has the baptism of desire, is saved with invincible ignorance or has perfect contrition ?
Anthony :
"St. Pius XII uses the standard defacto-dejure analysis in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.”
That is incorrect. Pope Pius XII uses the common necessity of precept and necessity of means analysis as clearly explained by Monsignor Fenton.
Lionel:
The necessity of precept and means is a theological point and is different from the defacto-dejure analysis which is a philosophical reasoning used in theology. It helps one to avoid contradicting the Principle of Non Contradiction.
Anthony :
"The defacto- dejure analysis is used in theology.”
Please show me one theologian (pre-Vatican II) who uses this analysis in reference to the dogma.
Lionel :
The defacto-dejure analyis is used in many magisterial texts. It is common.
For example in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 it is used.
The Letter of the Holy Office refers to ‘the dogma’. The dogma indicates that every one needs to defacto enter the Catholic Church for salvation.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 refers to the baptism of desire . The baptism of desire is known only to God. We accept it in principle (de jure) in ‘certain circumstances’. There are no defacto known cases.
So here is the defacto-dejure analysis.
Anthony :
”So the Letter of the Holy Office supports Fr.Leonard Feeney on doctrine and is in accord with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.”
Really? Are we reading the same Holy Office Letter?
Lionel :
We are reading the same Letter of the Holy Office if you use the defacto-dejure analysis to avoid contradicting the Principle of Non Contradiction. This was as done by the theologians who wrote the magisterial texts.
We are not reading the same Letter of the Holy Office 1949 if you use a defacto-defacto analysis as did the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits there. They contradicted the Principle of Non Contradiction. They assumed that the baptism of desire was de facto known to us and so it was an exception to the dogma which said that de facto all need to enter the Church for salvation.
Anthony :
Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for disobedience to legitimate authority. The root of this disobedience was a doctrinal aberration on his part.
Lionel :
Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for disobedience. He did not go to Rome when called. The doctrine aberration was that of the Archbishop of Boston who taught that the baptism of desire etc were defacto exceptions to the dogma.
How could Fr.Leonard Feeney be in doctrinal aberration when the excommunication was lifted without him having to make any change in his writing. Neither was he asked to recant.
Anthony :
You make a contrary claim here to what is clear in the Holy Office Letter.
Lionel :
You need to specify by ‘condemn’ are you referring to his excommunication for disobedience or are you implying it was for heresy.
The Letter of the Holy Office was critical of the Archbishop of Boston. It refers to 'the dogma' which says every one needs to convert into the Church for salvation.(The Archbishop says no, there are defacto exceptions). It refers to implicit and not explicit to us baptism of desire.(For the Archbishop the baptism of desire had to be explcit to be an exception to the dogma). It does not state that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma etc.
To suggest that there are defacto exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is heresy.
Anthony :
The Holy Office Letter condemns Fr. Feeney. It does not support him.
Lionel :
This is the view of the liberal media. They have been repeating the lie over the years. This is also their political position. Catholics assume that this is the teaching of the Church. Catholics also assume that the baptism of desire etc are defacto known to us and so can be exceptions to the dogma .
-Lionel Andrades