The following quotation is from the E-Exchanges of the Most Holy Family Monastery who also have been making the Richard Cushing Error. They assume that the baptism of desire is visible to us and so is an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, so they reject the baptism of desire.
It was the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing who assumed that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance were exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This was also the position of the Americanists at that time.
From the Most Holy Family Monastery website with comments
Justification
MHFM:
Someone recently contacted us and indicated that Neal Webster might be interested in a debate on Justification. Apparently Webster gave that impression to someone. For those who don’t know, Webster claims to hold the position that no man is saved without water baptism (i.e., that there is no ‘baptism of desire’); but he believes that one can receive justification (the state of sanctifying grace) without water baptism by the desire for it.
Lionel:
We do not know any one saved with the baptism of desire and we do not know any one saved with or without justification!So how does it contradict the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus? Unless of course one is making the Richard Cushing Error.
Simply put, he obstinately adheres to the position of the St. Benedict Center and Fr. Feeney on Justification: that one can be justified by desire, but not saved by desire. That position is COMPLETELY WRONG and contrary to an array of dogmatic arguments.
Lionel:
There is no magisterial text or dogma which states that we can see the dead who are saved with the baptism of desire.If there was such a text it would be making the Richard Cushing Error.
In a debate with Webster, we would prove that position to be incompatible with infallible Catholic truth. We wrote to Webster and challenged him to a telephone debate on the matter. We received no response.
As we’ve pointed out before, it’s possible that someone who has not seen the dogmatic facts and arguments on this matter could be confused or erring in good faith for a certain period of time. However, to favor it in the face of the relevant facts and arguments is simply to deny Catholic teaching and be a heretic. Those who tenaciously cling to that false position (as Webster, the totally apostate followers of the St. Benedict Center and some others do) are generally inclined to do so because they are nothing more than worshippers of man, lost in the cult of Fr. Leonard Feeney, unwilling to admit that he was wrong on that point. If they had true faith and fidelity to Catholic teaching, they would easily recognize (when reviewing the arguments) that no one can be saved without water baptism precisely because no one can be justified without it...
Lionel:
No one can be saved in the present times, in fact, defacto, without the baptism of water given to adults with Catholic Faith.(AG 7).
In principle a person can be saved or justfied with the baptism of desire as a possibility known only to God and in a manner known only to God.The Council of Trent acknowledges implicit desire as a possibility for salvation.
It should also be noted that Webster, while giving the impression that he stands for the salvation dogma, doesn’t. Not very long ago he hosted the ‘baptism of desire’ and ‘invincible ignorance’ heretic Bishop Slupski, and he worked with him closely.
Lionel:
If the MHFM did not hold the Richard Cushing Error they would realize that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are not known exceptions to the dogma on salvation.
Webster presented Slupski as someone of the true faith. When confronted about this matter, Webster complained that he didn’t know Slupski’s position. Of course, someone who cares about the faith in our day would ascertain Slupski’s position on that crucial matter before presenting him to the people as a Catholic. Slupski is not only a heretic, but he even condemns those who reject BOD...
Lionel:
If someone condemns those who reject the baptism of desire it is likely he is making the Richard Cushing Error and assumes that the baptism of desire is visible to us in the present times and so is a known exception to the dogma on salvation. However if the baptism of desire is implicit for him, invisible for him and known only to God, it should not be rejected. Since it is irrelevant to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.The baptism of desire is 'compatible' with the defined dogma on salvation.It was not mentioned by the Councils in the text of the dogma since it is irrelevant and not an exception.
-Lionel Andrades
Posts
2 comments:
Almost all the post-Tridentine theologians, up to, and including the Vatican II Theological Commission, and officially promulgated documents of that Council, teach as common and probable; that, after the fact of the Incarnation; at least an implicit belief in the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Redemption is necessary by "necessitate medii" [necessity of means]...
They also teach that the supernatural act of Divine and Catholic faith - on the part of the believer - necessarily presupposes the infallible act of the ordinary, universal, and present-day teaching of the Roman Catholic Church...
Others, such as Saint Thomas and Saint Alphonsus, teach as more probable and even certain, that "fides implicita non sufficit post factum Incarnationis DNIC..." [an implicit faith (in these Mysteries) does not suffice for justification and salvation after the fact of the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ...]
These dogmatic truths of the faith have then been erroneously applied to validly bapitized - "vel saltem 'in voto'" [or at least in desire] - material heretics or schismatics acting in "good faith"...but such a category does not exist; either in theory or in fact, because such persons cannot elicit such an act of "Divine and Catholic faith," by its very definition.
These dogmatic truths of the faith have then been erroneously applied to validly bapitized - "vel saltem 'in voto'" [or at least in desire] - material heretics or schismatics acting in "good faith"...but such a category does not exist; either in theory or in fact, because such persons cannot elicit such an act of "Divine and Catholic faith," by its very definition.
Being saved with implicit desire does not exist for us in real life. In faith we can accept this, in principle it is possible under conditions known by God and in a manner known by God to save them.
We cannot judge who has a genuine unconscious desire, or elements of sanctification and grace.
While the dogma on salvation and Vatican Council II says all need faith and baptism for salvation, all need to convert into the Catholic Church to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.
Post a Comment