Repost : Where is the actual case of someone saved outside the Church ? There is none
JUNE 28, 2014
Where is the actual case of someone saved outside the Church ? There is none
What I have to say is not theology.A Muslim or Jew could say the same thing. It is an observation common to all people. It is common knowledge that we cannot see the dead. It is common knowlegde that for something to be an exception it must be different and it must exist. This would be known even to a non Catholic or a youth who has no knowledge of Catholic theology.
If you think of the Church as being a "box," then, yes, it is visible, but whether the "apples" in it are fresh or rotten is an entirely invisible matter. We cannot say, with an absolute certainty that we are in a state of grace or will end our lives as such:
The example of the box of fruit was given only to bring to your attention the common understanding that for something to be an exception it would have to be different and it would have to exist in our reality.
CANON XVI.-If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end,-unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema.https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/trentall.html Lionel:
This has nothing to do with the error of assuming that 1) we can see the dead and 2) the dead are visible exceptions to all needing to convert into the Catholic Church with no exceptions in 2014.
Sure, that would be a Protestant who shows-up at Mass. He/she is a non-Catholic but whether they will end-up in eternal Hell is known only to the One and Triune God.
Again this has nothing to do with the physical observation of the deceased and then inferring that they are exceptions.
For the baptism of desire to be an exception to all needing to convert into the Church with the baptism of water ( and Catholic Faith) there would have to be a case present in 2014. There would have to be a case known to us.This person must exist in our reality.When there is no such visible case how can it be an exception to all needing to convert with the baptism of water.Where is the actual case of someone saved outside the Church ( without faith and baptism) ? There is none.
You're "pounding on open doors," Lionel. Consider this from the Roman Catechism:
Necessity of Baptism If the knowledge of what has been hitherto explained be, as it is, of highest importance to the faithful, it is no less important to them to learn that the law of Baptism, as established by our Lord, extends to all, so that unless they are regenerated to God through the grace of Baptism, be their parents Christians or infidels, they are born to eternal misery and destruction. Pastors, therefore, should often explain these words of the Gospel: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Even the new Catechism states, more or less, the same thing: 1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.
This is all theology. I agree with all this.
Yes the baptism of desire is a possibility. It is known to God.It is theologically acceptable with certain conditions. It is not an exception to all needing to convert into the Catholic Church. The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 assumes that it is an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney. This is a mistake.
The Letter does not assume that it is an "exception" as it appeals to the Council of Trent, which declared: CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
Theology in itself is not a problem. I agree with you. It is when it is used to indicate that there are known exceptions then it is factually wrong. The baptism of water is necessary for salvation we both agree here.However when it is inferred that there are exceptions to all needing the baptism of water then it is implied that there are known exceptions. Hypothetical cases cannot be exceptions.To consider the baptism of desire etc as being explicit is irrational. To consider it to be an exception to a defined dogma is heresy. It is theology preceded by an irrational inference.
The Holy Office 1949 also implies that we can see the dead now saved in Heaven with the baptism of desire.This is irrational. It is factually incorrect. Objectively we cannot see the dead.
Of course, we can't. No one is claiming that we can. Lionel:
It is not being claimed outwardly or directly but it is being implied subtly. As soon as you say there are exceptions you are saying that the dead-saved are visible to us.
The Letter is only claiming that the Triune God may know of exceptions; we can't and we don't. Once again, Lionel:
Yes the Triune God will know of cases saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance. These cases would be 'exceptions' for Him. They cannot be exceptions for us.Since we cannot see them. We do not know who they are.So for us they are just possibilities but never exceptions.
The Letter with reference to Fr.Leonard Feeney implies they are exceptions.
CANON XVI.-If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end,-unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema.
The One and Triune God knows; we don't. That is what the Letter is claiming.
Fine. So why was Fr.Leonard Feeney wrong if the Letter was not claiming there were exceptions? _____________________________________
The Catholic Church has always taught that she is a visible society with a visible head and visible members, composed of individuals who are good and bad, some of whom will spend Eternity in Heaven and others in eternal Hell. While the Church is certainly visible, the fate of its members is not.
Agreed and the Church has always inferred before the 1940's that those saved with the baptism of desire are invisible to us in real life. They are not exceptions to anything.This is rational.It is common sense.
Agreed. And, it is still "common sense." Lionel:
If it is common sense then why is the Letter assuming Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center were wrong?
I think that you're reading text into the Holy Office Letter that is simply not there.
If any one says that the deceased saved and happy in Heaven are now physically visible to us is making a false inference. This is the inference which comes across when you read the Letter of the Holy Office.
It pays to read the whole Letter:
Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a "Defender of the Faith," and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities, and has not even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons because of his serious violations of his duties as a religious, a priest, and an ordinary member of the Church.
Father Feeney got into trouble because of his public attacks on the Catholic hierarchy, and ultimately, for his refusal to go to Rome to meet the Pope on what would have amounted to a free and completely paid-for trip!!! ("And, who, in their right mind, would have refused a free vacation?!!!!)
The SSPX and the Cathinfo forum interpret the Letter as saying there are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So if there are exceptions Fr.Leonard Feeney made a mistake. This is the message of the Holy Office 1949.