Repost : Sedevacantists,SSPX, Supporters of Fr.Leonard Feeney have a moment of insight then they go back to their old position

JULY 11, 2011

Sedevacantists,SSPX, Supporters of Fr.Leonard Feeney have a moment of insight then they go back to their old position

MONDAY, JULY 11, 2011

SEDEVACANTISTS, SSPX, SUPPORTERS OF FR.LEONARD FEENEY HAVE A MOMENT OF INSIGHT THEN GO BACK TO THEIR OLD POSITION

Traditionalists not aware of traditional approach

For centuries there was no controversy in the Catholic Church on the issue of the baptism of desire. They assumed it was known only to God. Even for the Council of Trent the Baptism of desire did not conflict with Cantate Domino on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Sedevacantists (not MHFM) today recognize this is true in  e-mail correspondence with me. However soon they deny it is possible and revert to their old position, either pro or anti baptism of desire. There can only be two options for them.

Yet for centuries in the Catholic Church it was known that a non Catholic could be saved with the baptism of desire and this could be accepted only in principle since we did not personally know any case. We could not meet on earth a person saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance. So it did not conflict with extra ecclesiam nulla salus i.e. everyone needs to be an explicit member of the Catholic Church to avoid Hell, with no exceptions. Over the centuries they knew that the baptism of desire was not an exception to the dogma. This was the simple traditional understanding in the Church.

A traditionalist today can have any opinion on Justification, Sanctifying Grace, implicit salvation etc it doesn’t change the reality that all those saved with the baptism of desire are known only to God.

So whatever religious view or theory one holds, correct or incorrect, it does not change the reality that those saved with the baptism of desire are known only to God.

If someone in the forest is saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire and God sends a preacher to him it is known only to God.

If someone in the forest is saved in invincible ignorance or he has a genuine baptism of desire and God sends someone to baptize him with water, it is known only to God.

This issue was clear for Pope Pius XII when the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was sent to the Archbishop of Boston agreeing with Fr. Leonard Feeney on dogma/doctrine and criticizing him for discipline/disobedience.

The ‘dogma’ the ‘infallible’ teaching Pope Pius XII referred to in the Letter of the Holy Office indicated all non Catholics in Boston need to convert into the Catholic Church to avoid Hell. All, since, de facto, in reality we do not know any case of the baptism of desire.

The Letter of the Holy Office mentioned the possibility of non Catholics saved with the baptism of desire ‘in certain circumstances’ .So in principle Pope Pius XII was accepting the possibility of the baptism of desire. It is something which can be accepted in principle, de jure, but which never can be known de facto. This was known traditionally.

De facto every one needs to enter the Catholic Church for salvation. De jure there could be non Catholics saved with the baptism of desire. This does not violate the Principle of Non Contradiction.

In e-mail correspondence with sedevacantists, members or supporters of the Society of St. Pius X and supporters of Fr. Leonard Feeney I notice they first agree that there is no baptism of desire that we could possibly know. Then soon they go back to their old position inferring there is a baptism of desire that we can know of in the present times, so it contradicts the dogma.

To believe that there is no de facto baptism of desire known to us they fear could be a new theory or theology, something non traditional.

So they go back to assuming that the baptism of desire is real and known to us in the present times, in particular cases. They infer that we can know these cases in actual life. They imply that it must contradict the dogma Cantate Domino, which indicates that everyone must be an explicit, formal member of the Church for salvation. Since this would conflict with the Principle of Non Contradiction some reject the baptism of desire and others try to interpret it theologically and differently.

Since they do not make the defacto-dejure distinction they reject the baptism of desire completely e.g Peter and Michael Dimond.

Yet for centuries, before 1940, there was no known de facto baptism of desire and invincible ignorance.Since even if someone was saved with the baptism of desire it would only be known to God.

The Church Councils which gave us the dogma outside the church no salvation obviously knew about the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance. The Councils did not consider them exceptions to the dogma since reason tells us that we do not know any explicit case. This has been traditional  in the Catholic Church for hundreds of years and it is supported by Vatican Council II.

Non traditional traditionalists criticize Vatican Council II implying it contradicts extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They infer that we know, in the present times, cases of non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance (Lumen Gentium 16), a good conscience, imperfect communion with the Church etc.

When the Catechism of the Catholic Church mentions non Catholics implicitly saved through Jesus and the Church (n.836) it is assumed that we know such cases in the present times.

Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church are only repeating what was known in Tradition i.e. those saved implicitly (good conscience etc) are known only to God. So it does not contradict the thrice defined dogma.

SSPX members repeat on internet forums that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre said non Catholics could be saved. They criticize Fr. Leonard Feeney. They criticize the dogma Cantate Domino.

Sedevantists also maintain as a norm that the baptism of desire is defacto knowable to us and so some reject it since it could contradict Cantate Domino while others accept it in a new version of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, EENS Cushingite.So we have sedevacantists supporting EENS Cushingite(CMRI etc) and others supporting EENS (Feeneyite) e.g MHFM.

Supporters of Fr. Leonard Feeney criticize Vatican Council II assuming its reference to invincible ignorance, good conscience etc are a reference to de facto cases, knowable on earth. This would contradict Cantate Domino.

All are assuming implicit cases are really explicit for us.

Once they assume that implicit cases are known to us personally they imply

1. The baptism of desire does not exist since it contradicts extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

2. The pro and anti baptism of desire controversy begins.

3. They assume Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church are contrary to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

4. They create a new, non traditional doctrine and assume it is part of the Deposit of the Faith.

5. To support their view they quote Church Councils, popes and saints not mentioning if the reference is to de facto or de jure baptism of desire.

6. They cannot cite any Council, pope or saint who refers to baptism of desire cases known in the present times.

7. They will cite references to the baptism of desire and assume it is de facto and not de jure i.e. accepted only in principle, as a concept.
This is all the confusion which arises since they do not differentiate between EENS Cushingite and Feeneyite, Vatican Council II Cushingite and Feeneyite, BOD,BOB and I.I(Cushingite or Feeneyite) etc.
-Lionel Andrades

Photos  of Venerable Pope Pius XII and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre meeting Padre Pio.