Sunday, January 27, 2013

FOR FR.FRANCOIS LAISNEY AND BRO.THOMAS AUGUSTINE ASSUME IN PRINCIPLE CASES TO BE EXPLICIT AND REAL

When Brother Thomas Augustine MICM says a catechumen can be saved with a genuine desire, charity and followed with the baptism of water and Father Francois Laisney says a genuine desire and charity with God’s grace is sufficient for salvation they are both referring to a  hypothetical case.


It is important to note that this case is accepted only as a possibility. It is theoretical. This case is not real, visible and known in 2013. It cannot ever be known to us. So it can only be accepted in theory. It is explicit only for God and never explicit for Bro.Thomas Augustine or Fr.Francois Laisney.


So in either of the two ways, what is in principle and does not exist in the present reality, cannot be an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma by Fr. Leonard Feeney.Since it does not exist in fact it cannot be an exception.


Similalry when I say that there are only Catholics in Heaven I mean in principle, in faith, in theory that all those who are saved in Heaven  have received the baptism of water. In reality I have not been to Heaven so I would not know this as a fact.I accept it in faith.


Similarly when Fr. Laisney or a member of the SSPX says there are cases of people in heaven who are there without the baptism of water - this is hypothetical. I would not know this for a fact until I am in Heaven and God allows me to see it for myself. Presently these cases would be explicit only for God.


For the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Brother Thomas Augustine’s community these cases are explicit ?


Jerry:
Let's take a simple declarative statement.


"There exists in Heaven a soul who died outside the Church."
The statement is either true or false. We might not know the answer, but it is true or false, right?


Lionel:
There exists in Heaven a soul who died outside the Church!
How would you know?
How would you know either way if there exists or there does not exist?
This is what I have been saying all this time.
Implicit salvation is always unknown to us.
A possibility is not a reality.


Jerry
I am certain that the Slaves and Fr. Feeney would say "false." I certainly say "false."

Lionel
You would say false since you assume that those saved with the baptism of desire etc, without the Sacraments (CCC 1257) would be concrete cases, known to us and since they are known,they would be known exceptions to Cantate Domino, and so you must reject it.


Jerry
Dogma is God's revealed truth, and must be true both for Him and for us.

Lionel:
Yes. For centuries the Church taught the dogma on salvation along with implicit baptism of desire etc and there was no contradiction. The contradiction came in the 1940s with explicitly known baptism of desire etc. It is the traditionalists who assume that implicit baptism of desire is explicit for us human beings. This was the error of Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits there.


Jerry
If God saves even one soul outside the Church, then He cannot bind us to the dogma, for that would violate truth.

Lionel:
The manner God chooses to save a soul is known only to Him.

For instance someone could die without the baptism of water and God could not condemn him. Instead he could send him or her back to earth to be baptized by the saints. This has been the experience of St. Francis Xavier etc.

When the Sultan who met St.Francis of Assisi was on his death bed Franciscan Friars suddenly appeared and baptized him.

Jerry
 God saves even one soul outside the Church, then He cannot bind us to the dogma, for that would violate truth.

Lionel
Even if he did or did not- what bearing does it have on the truth?

The truth is that everyone on earth needs Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation. (AG 7, Cantate Domino, CCC 846 etc).

If God chooses to save one soul outside the Church, God being God, how does it cancel the dogmatic teaching? Since, you would not know this case, any way.


Jerry
In a subsequent post, you are now saying "For the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary there can be people saved with implicit desire, charity ..."

Lionel
This was a definition of the baptism of desire on the website of a Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary community.


The Slaves accept the baptism of desire with a condition, the necessity of receiving the baptism of water.


For Jerry and other traditionalists there is no in principle and in fact distinction.They simply assume that what can be known only in principle is explicit for us.


When the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257 says God is not limited to the Sacraments and it also says the Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water it is making the in principle and in fact distinction. In principle, in theory a person can be saved without the Sacrament of baptism, in reality, in fact in 2013 every one needs the baptism of water for salvation.


This passage is contradictory for the traditionalists and they have expressed their confusion over it on traditionalist forums.


So when this in principle and in fact distinction is not made it is obvious that Brother Thomas Augustine and Fr. Francois Laisney will interpret Vatican Council II as break with the past. It will be a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, for Brother Thomas Augustine.

Diocese Logo

Brother Thomas Augustine and the Sisters of St. Benedict Center in the Worcester where they have canonical status, by now could have been approaching other religious communities in the dioceses and asking them to accept the literal interpretation of the dogma along with the baptism of desire accepted in principle as a possibility and known only to God. Like CCC 1257 it would not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction. It is compatible with Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church since implicit to us salvation can never be an exception since it is never explicit for us.


When the St. Benedict Center in Worcester, who have canonical status, affirm the literal interpretation of the dogma along with implicit for us baptism of desire (and with a condition, the baptism of water) it does not violate the Principle of Non Contradiction.


Theoretically, one may ask is this an exception to the rule that everyone needs the baptism of water for salvation (John 3:5)? No! Since it is a hypothetical case it is not an exception. What is a probability (baptism of desire, being saved in invincible ignorance etc) is not a known reality. It is not real. What is accepted or rejected in doctrine is hypothetical and so it cannot be an exception to the dogma which says all need to convert into the church visibly for salvation.


Bother Thomas Augustine at the St.Benedict Center, Worcester and Fr.Francois Laisney of the SSPX are both mixing up an in principle theoretical doctrine as being real and known, they are both like two sides of the same coin.-Lionel Andrades