Thursday, November 8, 2012

Bro.Thomas Augustine MICM, Fr.Francois Laisney SSPX, Fr.Joseph Pfeiffer SSPX-SO and sedevacantists Michael and Peter Dimond assume that the baptism of desire is relevant to the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus


In varying shades of the baptism of desire, traditionalists will not deny that the deceased now saved can be visible to us on earth.So for them these cases are known exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.

For the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary there can be people saved with implicit desire,charity and the baptism of water.In discussions they consider these cases relevant to the literal interpretation of the dogma.The baptism of desire per se is not an exception to the dogma. This concept does not exist for them. Theologically,only, they will deny that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma and the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.

These cases are relevant for them since they assume that the baptism of desire per se, in itself, is known, or can be known and so it is an explicit exception to the dogma.So they theologically reject the baptism of desire without the baptism of water.The baptism of desire must include the baptism of water for them.They do not specify if these cases are implicit or explicit to us.This leads to confusion.

Similarly Peter and Michael DImond of the Most Holy Family Monastary,USA also consider the baptism of desire as explicit and so an exception to the dogma.So these sedevcantists too reject the baptism of desire since for them it contradicts the dogma.In their writings, the baptism of desire is explicit and known for them, as it is for the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the community of Fr.Leonard Feeney.

The Society of St.Pius X ( SSPX) priests also consider it possible to meet the deceased saved with the baptism of desire. These cases are explicit for them.So they consider these cases as acceptable exceptions to the dogma which says all need to convert into the Church for salvation.

SHADES OF THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE

For all of them, in some way, human beings can see the deceased now saved in Heaven.

So for all of them who believe the dead are visible, Vatican Council II contradicts extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors.

Lumen Gentium 16 is an exception to Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II ( faith and baptism).Lumen Gentium 8 refers to visible 'elements of sanctification' leading to salvation, among non Catholics.So LG 8 contradicts the dogma.There are known cases on earth saved with 'the seeds of the word' (AG 11).Another reason for them to reject Vatican Council II. They can judge who is 'good and holy' (NA) and saved in other religions and are visible to us on earth.Nostra Aetate is syncretistic for them.

These cases are known to the traditionalists and so they reject Vatican Council II.
These cases are known to the liberals, like Fr.Hans Kung and the Paulist Fathers, and so they accept this interpretation of Vatican Council II.

At the centre of this controversy is: are these cases visible to us or not?

Bro.Thomas Augustine,MICM and the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary have canonical status in the Catholic Diocese of Worcester.Fr.Francis Laisney of the Society of St.Pius X is awaiting canonical status. Peter and Michael Dimond are outside the church.

These traditionalists like the liberal Paulist Fathers in Worcester and Boston, do not seem to realize that implicit baptism of desire is not an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma on salvation.It does not violate the Principle of Non Contradiction.One can affirm the literal interpretation of the dogma and also the traditional understanding of being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.They are not relevant to the dogma.

In principle we accept the possibility of persons being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. In principle we do not know these cases. We cannot know these cases.In principle they are not exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

I cannot say there were 10 people saved this year with the baptism of desire. Neither can I say that there were not 10 people saved. We don't know.

It was Cardinal Richard Cushing the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits there who made it seem that the baptism of desire etc was relevant to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney. For 19 years the excommunication was not lifted even though there are no known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma on salvation.
-Lionel Andrades