Sunday, July 21, 2013

BaptismofDesire.com -oops!

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

The CDF officials are saying that the Magisterium made a mistake: it's not just me

Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J, Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,(CDF) Vatican and Archbishop Augustine Di Noia, Vice President,Ecclesia Dei, CDF  have been associated with the International Theological Commission. Archbishop Gerhard Muller, Prefect of the CDF is the present ex officio President of the ITC.
 
The ITC states on line that being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Fr.Leonard Feeney.(See  Christianity and the World Religions 1997,ITC,N.66,67,68 and'The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without being baptized'  2007 N.58,59).
 
If  there are exceptions it means Pope Pius XII assumed the dead now saved  with invincible ignorance etc are known to us.He could name them. So they were exceptions to all needing to convert into the Catholic Church in the present times. They were allegedly explicit and defacto exceptions.
 
This was not something accepted in principle by Pope Pius XII,according to the ITC , but accepted as explicit and visible, to be an exception.
 
So here we have it on the ITC Vatican website.Pope Pius XII used the Richard Cushing irrational premise (according to the ITC).
 
ITC assumes that the Magisterium at the time of Pope Pius XII states:
1) The dead (saved with the baptism of desire etc) are visible to us.
2.)These deceased are visible exceptions to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
3)So the baptism of desire etc were known exceptions to the dogma on salvation which Fr.Leonard Feeney rejected.
4)So according to the Magisterium of Pope Pius XII the fault was with Fr.Leonard Feeney.
5) This Magisterial decision is accepted by the present Magisterium (2013).
 
 
I am just pointing out that that the magisterium has made a mistake if they are using the Cushing premise( as on the ITC website).
The actual Magisterial texts are heresy-free and it can be interpreted without the  Cushing error. Then there is no break with Tradition in magisterial texts.
 
 If anyone would call up Archbishop Augustine Di Noia or other bishops and cardinals , they could confirm- the baptism of desire is an accepted exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

 The magisterium's oversight was never corrected by the Jesuits or Pope Francis and he could have been teaching the same mistake in theology  class in Buenos Aires.

 So the Magisterium in the 1940's to that of 2013  have assumed there are known exceptions to everyone needing to convert into the Church for salvation. This is how they  have interpreted  the text of Quanta Cura (Pope Pius IX) Mystici Corporis and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 (Pope Pius XII), Vatican Council II (LG 6,Lg 16, Ag 7, Ag 11, UR 3,NA 2 etc),the Catechism of the Catholic Church (846,1257), Redemptoris Missio (10), Dominus Iesus(20 etc) etc.
 
This is a false interpretation since the dead are not visible to us. The baptism of desire is a possibility known to God, it is not an exception to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
 
The mistake is there for anyone to check online on two ITC papers.
-Lionel Andrades
 
June 26, 2012

ITC documents 'Christianity and the World Religions' and 'The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without being baptized ' need to be retracted or corrected: Richard Cushing flaw runs through  

 

Mark Shea and Faithful Answers imply the Catholic Magisterium made a mistake, a factual error.

There is a question with reference to the last post on Mark Shea.

Question:
You are bringing Fr. Feeney into a post to the Mark Shea article?
 
Lionel:
Are you saying that the Magisterium made a mistake in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case ?
If Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for heresy, that is denying the baptism of desire, then it means that the Magisterium is saying that the baptism of desire is an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney. This is what Mark Shea implies.The Magisterium made a factual error.
 
Only if cases saved with the baptism of desire etc are known personally in the present times can they be an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney, which was the traditional interpretation for centuries.
 
Would you know any one in the present times saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance ?
Does the Letter of the Holy Office relative to Fr.Leonard Feeney state that there are known cases? If it does then it made an objective error, since we cannot see the dead.

It means the Magisterium made a mistake, according to Mark Shea and the Jewish Left media.
 
It is important to remember that the excommunication of Fr.Leonard Feeney was lifted without him having to recant. Instead of the Nicene Creed he chose to recite the Athanasius Creed which says Outside the Church there is No Salvation.
 
So is Mark Shea saying that the Athanasius Creed and the Nicene Creed have made a mistake or have been found inadequate because they  have not mentioned the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance. The Creed does not state that these cases are known exceptions to all needing 'one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' and 'outside the Church there is no salvation'.
 
Is Mark Shea denying the Creed? This would be a first class heresy. A mortal sin.
 
For me: the Magisterium has not made a mistake in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case and Fr.Leonard Feeney was never in heresy. He was excommunicated for disobedience among  confusion and inconsistencies on the part of the Archbishop of Boston and the Holy Office 1949.
 
If one uses the Richard Cushing premise in the interpretation of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 then the Letter would be a break with Tradition, it would be heresy and then the Magisterium would appear to have made a mistake.
 
The Richard Cushing Error implies that de jure  statements are de facto known and so are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.For example it is accepted in principle (de jure) that a non Catholic could be saved with implicit desire under certain conditions known only to God.These cases known only to God are assumed to be known in the present times, explicitly, defacto. Then it is assumed wrongly that these cases are exceptions to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.In other words one can see the dead. Mark Shea, Faithful Answers and the Magisterium would be saying we can see the dead. It is a fact that we cannot see the dead. So this would be an objective error.
This was the original mistake of the Archbishop of Boston who penalized Fr.Leonard Feeney for being faithful to the teachings of the Church.
 
Pope Pius XII could have clarified the issue and said all Jews and other non Catholics need to convert into the Church for salvation and there are no known exceptions, but he probably did not do so for political. reasons.He let the cancer spread throughout the Church.
-Lionel Andrades