Monday, July 21, 2014

Baptismofdesire.com: historically there was not a single reference to explicit for us, seen in the flesh baptism of desire

   I  sent the following blog post to Fr. Benedict Hughes, CMRI.


Where does the Catholic Church teach that the baptism of Blood and of Desire are physically visible and known to us in the present times (2014) ?

Copertina anteriore
He recommend the website: www.baptismofdesire.com.
So I wrote to them.Paul has responded.  

He has not been able to cite a single reference to the baptism of desire in which is is said that these cases are explicit for us and seen in the flesh. There is no saint or Pope who has said that the baptism of desire is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The visible for us baptism of desire is irrational.Since these cases are always known only to God and are invisible for us.So a hypothethical case cannot be a defacto exception in the present times to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.
Once this error is identified the sedevacantists and the SSPX and other traditionalists are in a position to accept Vatican Council II not as ambigous but traditional.
'A ray of the Truth'(NA 2), saved in imperfect communion with the Church'(UR 3), 'seeds of the Word'(AG 11) are hypothetical cases and cannot be defacto exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Tradition.This is a common mistake being made by those who reject Vatican Council II.-L.A

 
Paul:
      Regarding baptism of desire being implicit or explicit, the Church has always taught that both apply. St. Thomas Aquinas writes in his Summa in the 13th century, "Man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly". St. Alphonsus Liguori writes in his manual on Moral Theology in the 18th century, "...accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true baptism of water". St. Pope Pius X writes in the Catechism of St. Pius X in the 20th century, "...along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism". The Holy Office writes in 1949 (approved by Pope Pius XII), "...when a person is involved in invincible ignorance, God accepts also an implicit desire". Numerous other detailed examples on explicit versus implicit faith can be found in the Summa Theologica. The ordinary magisterium of the Church clearly teaches both, and as we know the ordinary magisterium is infallible, so no Catholic can challenge this.
Lionel:
When I use the words implicit and explicit I am not referring to it theologically. By implicit I mean physically invisible, something not objective, not seen externally, not known personally or seen in the flesh as opposed to something seen defacto, in reality, in the present times.
Paul:
Regarding the letter of the Holy Office in 1949, it was originally sent privately to Archbishop Cushing. In that private letter, it clearly stated:
"the august Pontiff in an audience on the following Thursday, July 28, 1949, deigned to give his approval"
Lionel:
This is told to us by Archbishop Richard Cushing who suggested that there were known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. In other words he could name someone saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire.He could personally see or meet such cases who were in Heaven.He would have to know and see them for them to be an exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. This was a new doctrine. It was also irrational and heretical.
 
Paul:
So we know Pope Pius XII approved of the contents of the letter, and whether it was public or private at that moment is irrelevant.

Fr. Francisco Radecki gives a lecture during the Fatima ConferenceLionel:
We do not know if Pope Pius XII directly saw the Letter since it was an inter office letter from one bishop to another.However he did condone it over the years.Perhaps he did not want to state in public that all Jews in Boston and elsewhere need to convert into the Church for salvation and there are no exceptions.This was the time when Israel had become a new state and the Jewish Left influence was becoming dominant in Catholic Boston.

Paul:
Yet 3 years later in 1952, Archbishop Cushing was ordered to globally publish the letter. At the time he published it, he wrote in his introductory letter:
"The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office has examined again the problem of Father Leonard Feeney and St. Benedict Center. Having studied carefully the publications issued by the Center, and having considered all the circumstances of this case, the Sacred Congregation has ordered me to publish, in its entirety, the letter which the same Congregation sent me on the 8th of August, 1949. The Supreme Pontiff, His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, has given full approval to this decision. In due obedience, therefore, we publish, in its entirety, the Latin text of the letter as received from the Holy Office with an English translation of the same approved by the Holy See."
 Fr. Michael Oswalt speaks of his experiences in a VII seminary
Lionel:
So says a cardinal who rejected a defined dogma with claims of allegedly being able to see the dead saved with the baptism of desire etc ,cases known to him .These cases of the deceased were exceptions, for him,to the traditional and 'rigorist interpretation' of the dogma on exclusive salvation.He also did not lift the excommunication on Fr.Leonard Feeney for some 19 years since he refused to say that there is known salvation outside the Church.
Paul:
So Pope Pius XII not only gave full approval to the original letter, but also gave full approval to publishing it 3 years later. The letter was published in "The Church Teaches", "The Catholic Mind", and the "American Ecclesiastical Review", and Canon Law Digest (all contain imprimaturs), and was no doubt published elsewhere since there was not a single objection to it in the Church. You will note that these are not just American publications. For example, Canon Law Digest has always been used globally by laypeople and clergy alike, and is the most trusted resource in the Catholic Church containing changes to Canon law after the 1917 code was published.
Lionel:
The Letter did not have the seal and signature of the Secretary of the Holy Office 1949.It was not published in the Acta Apostolica Sedis.So Fr.Karl Rahner and the liberals who wanted to do away with the traditional dogma, cited the American Ecclesiastical Review and placed it in the Denzinger.
In his memoirs Senator Edward Kennedy wrote that he was present when his brother Robert phoned Archbishop Cushing and told him to suppress Fr.Leonard Feeney.
 Adsum photos
Paul:
So to say the letter from the Holy Office was in error, you are also at the same time incriminating Pope Pius XII for approving the original letter in 1949, and for approving its global publication in 1952, and for allowing it to remain in circulation for the rest of his pontificate until 1958. You are in effect saying that Pope Pius XII ordered an error to be published globally, misleading the faithful worldwide.
 
Lionel:
If someone says that all of us humans can see the dead on earth I would not accept it.I know I cannot see the deceased saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire.If Pope Pius XII or Pope Francis made this absurd claim I would reject it and so would others. Since it is common knowledge that the deceased are not physically visible to us on earth. In general we humans cannot see ghosts.We cannot see the spirits now dead, as real human beings.
It is you who are implying that Pope Pius XII made this absurd claim. If Pope Pius XII said that the deceased saved with the baptism of desire are visible exceptions to all needing to enter the Church with the baptism of water,then he is saying that the dead-saved are visible and living exceptions.
 
Paul:
As you know, the dogma of the infallibility of the Church promises that the Church cannot teach error.
 
Lionel:
Correct. The dogma on extra ecclesiam nulla salus has been defined three times and it does not mention the baptism of desire as an exception. This is what you imply on your website.You are rejecting the defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and also the dogma on the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra.
Paul:
In all my years discussing the subject I have never heard someone come right out and say that Pope Pius XII misled the faithful, but that is what you are saying here.
Lionel:
This is what you and so many other Catholics imply when you suggest there are known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is what you imply when you refer to explicit, visible in the flesh baptism of desire cases who are now in Heaven and are defacto exceptions to the traditional interpretation by Fr.Leonard Feeney.
 
Paul:
You are clearly mistaken and are treading on dangerous ground with your arguments.
Lionel:
You have not addressed the questions raised in the blog post which I sent you.
1) Do we personally know the dead now saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc,can we see them, are they physically visible to us in 2014 ?

2) Since we do not know any of these cases, in real life, they are not visible to us, there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, or Ad Gentes 7 which states 'all' need 'faith and baptism' for salvation ?
-Lionel Andrades

No comments: