The Bishop of Worcester
would not allow the Eucharist to be given to a divorcee. Nor would he
accept a priest who is married.There are rules and he knows them.Yet
he allows priests in his diocese to offer Holy Mass who believe there
are explicit exceptions to a defined dogma and to Vatican Council II
(Ad Gentes 7), even though the bishop and priests cannot cite any known exceptions in
daily life.Probably the bishop is not aware of this situation and he
himself could be making this error.
We can accept exceptions to
the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as possibilities, defacto there
are no known exceptions, so in reality there are no exceptions to the
dogma or Ad Gentes 7 which says ALL need Catholic Faith and the
baptism of water for salvation.
Priests of the diocese offer
Mass for the religious community Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of
Mary who hold the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam
nulla salus and agree with Vatican Council II (AG 7).They know LG 16
(invincible ignorance) is not an explicit exception to the dogma
which says all need to convert into the Church for salvation.So they
do not believe in a visible-to-us-baptism of desire or being saved in
invincible ignorance and being now in Heaven and known to us.
According to Canon Lawyer
Peter Vere the community of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of
Mary are in full communion with the diocese. They were told to
understand the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and make a simple
Profession of Faith.They were allowed to hold the strict
interpretation of the dogma.(1)
The issue is : can a
priest who denies the strict interpretation of the dogma and also AG
7 with alleged exceptions of the baptism of desire and baptism of
blood, cases which cannot be known to us and are known only to God,
offer Mass? Is the priest not saying 'I believe in one baptism for
the forgiveness of sin' and really means three? Is he not also saying
that there are visible to him cases of non Catholics saved in
invincible ignorance and the baptism of blood and so they are exceptions to the dogma?
Assuming that he believes
that Fr.Leonard
Feeney was excommunicated for claiming that the baptism of desire etc are not exceptions
to the dogma, would this not be an error of the Holy Office of that
time. We know the baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma since we do not know these cases. So if the Letter of the Holy Office
assumes that the baptism of desire etc are defacto exceptions to the
dogma then they made a mistake. It would be an objective factual
mistake.
So is this not an
'irregular' situation for the bishop, priests, religious and
catechists in the diocese of Worcester ?
-Lionel Andrades
1.
___________________________________________
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/04/strange-happenings-in-worcester.html#links
An 'irregular situation' in Manchester,Worcester and Boston?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/04/catholic-diocesan-priests-in-worcester.html
No comments:
Post a Comment