Monday, June 25, 2012

CARDINAL LEVADA WRITES PREFACE FOR ITC BOOK : IT SAYS THE HOLY OFFICE CORRECTED FR.LEONARD FEENEY FOR DENYING THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE, WHICH IT IS ASSUMED (WRONGLY) CONTRADICTS THE DOGMA

In what way does the baptism of desire contradict the literal interpretation of the dogma, CDF?

The book has an Introduction by the former Secretary General of the ITC, now Cardinal Luiz Ladaria, the Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ,Vatican (CDF).

If the Holy Office really indicated that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are explicit exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus then the cardinal who issued the Letter made a mistake. However a cardinal in the ordinary magisterium cannot overrule a thrice defined dogma and Vatican Council II (AG 7).

Documenti  contains documents of the ITC, with liberal erroneous interpretations based on a  factual error and they are available on the ITC–Vatican website.

The Sisters, like Sr. Margaret Farley, to whom Cardinal Ladaria sent a Notice recently could object to the irrationality in Documenti. We cannot know anyone with the baptism of desire so how can they be exceptions to the literal interpretation of Fr. Leonard Feeney.

Documenti 1969-2004 is printed  by Edizioni Studio Domenicano, Bologna. The preface is witten by Cardinal William Levada. The Introduction is by Luiz Ladaria s.j and it is published in 2004 by the Commissione Teologia Internazionale.

It has a section titled Il Cristianesimo e le religioni, extra ecclesiam nullla salus.From the document Il Cristianesimo e le religioni 1997 (ITC) there are  passages n. 64- 70.

Here are the passages I briefly noticed today morning.

A. "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus"

64. Jesus linked the proclamation of the kingdom of God with his Church. After Jesus' death and resurrection, the reunion of the people of God, now in the name of Jesus Christ, took place. The Church of Jews and gentiles was understood as a work of God and as the community in which one experienced the action of the Lord exalted in the heavens and his Spirit. With faith in Jesus Christ, the universal mediator of salvation, was joined baptism in his name; this mediated participation in his redemptive death, pardon of sins and entrance into the community of salvation (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5). For this reason baptism is compared with the ark of salvation (1 Pet 3:20ff.). According to the New Testament, the necessity of the Church for salvation is based on the unique salvific mediation of Jesus.

Lionel: Correct the baptism of water is needed for all for salvation- and not the baptism of desire. He is referring here to the baptism of water I want to emphasize.

65. One speaks of the necessity of the Church for salvation in two senses: the necessity of belonging to the Church for those who believe in Jesus and the necessity for salvation of the ministry of the Church which, on mission from God, must be at the service of the coming of the kingdom of God.

Lionel: According to the thrice defined dogma the Church is necessary for salvation and every one needs to convert into the Church. According to Vatican Council II (AG 7), all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation.

N.65 is confusing.

66. In his encyclical Mystici Corporis, Pius XII addresses the question, How are those who attain salvation outside visible communion with the Church related to her? He says that they are oriented to the mystical body of Christ by a yearning and desire of which they are not aware (DS 3821).

Lionel: Note Mystici Corporis does not state that those who have an implicit desire /yearning are known to us or that they are explicit exceptions to the dogmatic teaching or to Fr.Leonard Feeney.

The ITC makes this false assumption. This is a big leap theologically. Here begins the basis of errors that creeps into other documents of the ITC.

The opposition of the American Jesuit Leonard Feeney, who insisted on the exclusivist interpretation of the expression extra ecclesiam nulla solus, afforded the occasion for the letter of the Holy Office, dated 8 August ,1949, to the archbishop of Boston, which rejected Feeney s interpretation and clarified the teaching of Pius XII.

Lionel: Correct Fr.Leonard Feeney insisted on the ‘exclusivist interpretation’ as was known throughout Church history.

The Letter rejected Fr.Leonard Feeney’s interpretation  because there are explicit exceptions to the literal interpretation? The ITC is suggesting that the Letter of the Holy Office made a mistake.  Mystici Corporis does not say that we know these exceptions for them to be exceptions to the literal interpretation.Neither  does the Letter categrorically state this. One has to imply it.

The letter distinguishes between the necessity of belonging to the Church for salvation (necessitas praecepti) and the necessity of the indispensable means of salvation (intrinseca necessitas); in relationship to the latter, the Church is a general help for salvation (DS 3867—69). In the case of invincible ignorance the implicit desire of belonging to the Church suffices; this desire will always be present when a man aspires to conform his will to that of God (DS 3870). But faith, in the sense of Hebrews 11:6, and love are always necessary with intrinsic necessity (DS 3872).

Lionel: Implicit desire is not an exception to the dogma. This is an error. This is an objective error of the ITC.

67. Vatican Council II makes its own the expression extra ecclesiam nulla salus. But in using it the council explicitly directs itself to Catholics and limits its validity to those who know the necessity of the Church for salvation.

Lionel: Since it is wrongly assumed that we know people with implicit desire so only those ‘who know'are culpabale. The dogma says every one and not just 'those who know'.Anyway those who know will be judged by God as compared to those who are in invincible ignorance. We cannot judge these cases or know who they are.

The council holds that the affirmation is based on the necessity of faith and of baptism affirmed by Christ (LG 14). In this way the council aligned itself in continuity with the teaching of Pius XII, but emphasized more clearly the original parenthentical character of this expression.

Lionel: LG 14 is in accord with the literal interpretation of the dogma but there is confusion here.

68. In contrast to Pius XII, the council refused to speak of a votum implicitum (implicit desire) and applied the concept of the votum only to the explicit desire of catechumens to belong to the Church (LG 14). With regard to non-Christians, it said that they are ordered in diverse ways to the people of God. In accord with the different ways with which the salvific will of God embraces non-Christians, the council distinguished four groups: first, Jews; second, Muslims; third, those who without fault are ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and do not know the Church but who search for God with a sincere heart and try to fulfill his will as known through conscience; fourth, those who without fault have not yet reached an express knowledge of God but who nonetheless try to lead a good life (LG 16).

Lionel: LG 16 is always implicit and never explicit for us. So it is not an exception to the dogma or Fr.Leonard Feeney. The implication is wrong here.

69. The gifts which God offers all men for directing themselves to salvation are rooted, according to the council, in his universal salvific will (LG 2, 3, 26; AG 7). The fact that even non-Christians are ordered to the people of God is rooted in the fact that the universal call to salvation includes the vocation of all men to the catholic unity of the people of God (LG 13). The council holds that the close relationship of both vocations is rooted in the unique mediation of Christ, who in his body that is the Church makes himself present in our midst (LG 14).

Lionel: The universal salvific will etc are not exceptions or opposed to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So why it make it seem as if they are exceptions ?

70. Thus the original meaning is restored to the expression extra ecclesiam nulla salus, namely, that of exhorting the members of the Church to be faithful.31 Once this expression is integrated into the more universal extra Christum nulla salus, it is no longer in contradiction to the universal call of all men to salvation.

Lionel: The original meaning is denied here categorically.
-Lionel Andrades