The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX), Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Most Holy Family Monastery say they support the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus - but they do not agree among themself.
The sedvacantists MHFM with the Richard Cushing Error reject the baptism of desire. Since for them the baptism of desire would be a (known) exception to the dogma.
The SSPX because of the Richard Cushing Error accept the baptism of desire as a (known) exception to the dogma. This is contradictory but they overlook it.
The MHFM and the SSPX recognize the baptism of desire. One rejects it the other accepts it. They both assume it is visible to us.
The MHFM and the SSPX recognize the baptism of desire. One rejects it the other accepts it. They both assume it is visible to us.
The communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney, Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, affirm the literal interpretation of the salvation dogma .However there understanding of the baptism of desire is with the Richard Cushing Error.
There are different emphasis among them. Some may emphasize 'there is no baptism of desire' but only because they think the baptism of desire is a known exception to the dogma.Another would provide a definition of the baptism of desire which would include the baptism of water. If asked, "And suppose there is a case of a genuine desire (implicit desire) with charity but without the baptism of water. Would it contradict the literal interpretation of the dogma?" In their answer the Richard Cushing Error emerges.
There are different emphasis among them. Some may emphasize 'there is no baptism of desire' but only because they think the baptism of desire is a known exception to the dogma.Another would provide a definition of the baptism of desire which would include the baptism of water. If asked, "And suppose there is a case of a genuine desire (implicit desire) with charity but without the baptism of water. Would it contradict the literal interpretation of the dogma?" In their answer the Richard Cushing Error emerges.
If these cases were just accepted in principle they would not contradict the dogma.If these cases are assumed to be visible to us then they would be a contradiction to the necessity of the baptism of water for all.
Often I am told by supporters of Fr.Leonard Feeney that if you make an exception; if the baptism of water is not needed for just one person, then you reject the need for all to receive the baptism of water for salvation.
This would be true only of this case saved, with the baptism of desire was known to us, only if this person was visible to us. So the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary's concept of the baptism of desire is one which is visible to us.This shows how important it is to clarify our postion with the defacto-dejure concept.
The communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney reject some parts of Vatican Council II being a break with the past and a break with the dogma on salvation because they hold on to the Richard Cushing Error.
They have defended the dogma well, but for instance , have never corrected supporters of the SSPX, for assuming that the baptism of desire is visible for us and so relevant to the dogma.It is invisible and not relevant.This has been an area of confusion among the communities them self and their supporters.
They have never said in public that the baptism of desire is hypothetical and and so irrelevant to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney. Theologically they explain away the baptism of desire and so there are no exceptions.Philosophically,as a concept, the baptism of desire exists in principle (with the baptism of water condition) and there is no clarification that these cases are not relevant or exceptions to the dogma.
Fr.Brian Harrison has written for the Catholicism.org website of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.He has never been corrected for making the Richard Cushing Error in his articles. Similarly when Bro.Andre Marie MICM was critical of the articles by Jeff Mirus, it was never mentioned that the baptism of desire was irrelevant to the dogma.It was never said that there are no exceptions in Vatican Council II to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.The Richard Cushing Error was also new for Fr.Leonard Feeney's community in Worcester,USA.
The defacto-dejure (explicit-implicit,in fact-in principle) concept was never understood or accepted by them so the Catechism of the Catholic Church was misunderstood.We have to use the defacto-dejure interpretation because of the Richard Cushing Confusion caused by Deadwood Statements in Vatican Council II.The first time I mentioned the defacto-dejure concept to Brother.Andre Marie a few years back he thought that the concept could cause confusion.Yet the defacto-dejure concept ,mentioned in Dominus Iesus, is fundamental to clarifying Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
So the three of them (SSPX,MICM, MHFM) need to :
First, identify the Richard Cushing Error.
Second, identify the Deadwood Statements which contribute to a general Richard Cushing Confusion in Vatican Council II.
Third, use the defacto-dejure interpretation to clarify and express thinking without the Richard Cushing Error.
Fourth, affirm Vatican Council II in agreement with the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, since there are no known exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 and extra ecclesiam nulla salus.With Ad Gentes 7 having the same message as the dogma, we would also have a rational interpretation ,without the Richard Cushing Error.It would not be assumed that Lumen Gentium 16,Lumen Gentium 8 etc contradict the centuries old teaching on salvation.-Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment