Jeff Mirus could be asked if he knows anyone saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire in 2012. If he does not, then how can the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance be an exception to Fr. Leonard Feeney?

There has been a good theological response by Mr. Brian Kelly to a controversial report by Mr. Jeff Mirus on the salvation dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the baptism of desire etc. He uses theology and Scripture and the text of the dogma itself, to show that there is no salvation outside the Church.

In More Catholic Than the Popes  (July 23, 2012) (1) however he could also have brought out the point that the baptism of desire/ implicit desire is not relevant to the dogma since we do not know any explicit case.

So Jeff Mirus should not consider the baptism of desire or being saved in invincible ignorance as exceptions, to the dogma Cantate Domino, Council of Florence.

Aside from the theological approach if you see this issue philosophically, there are no known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Jeff Mirus’ Trinity Communications has placed a report on the internet over the last few years,Tragic Errors of Fr. Leonard Feeney   The report by Fr. William Most, assumes that the baptism of desire etc is an exception to the interpretation of the dogma by Fr. Leonard Feeney.

This is an objective error. It is a factual error. We cannot see anyone saved with the baptism of desire. When this error is repeated even after being informed and being understood it becomes a lie.

So it  is this objective approach which could also be used when discussing the dogma on exlcusive salvation. Rationally Jeff Mirus' position doesn't make sense.

Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits in Boston made an objective error when they assumed that being saved with implcit  desire was relevant to the dogma  extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Jeff Mirus could be asked if he knows anyone saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire in 2012. If he does not, then how can the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance be an exception to Fr. Leonard Feeney?

If he claims that the Magisterium of the Church suggests it is an exception, then would he be saying that the Magisterium made a mistake? In the report of Mirus being reviewed by Brian Kelly the pope is criticized as being careless. Jeffrey Mirus says Pope Pius XI was ‘a bit careless’.

So was the magisterium also careless in assuming that the baptism of desire is an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma according to the Church Fathers, the Councils, popes and saints?

Similarly when Fr.Francois Laisney and others assume that the baptism of desire etc are exceptions to the dogma, they could be asked to reason out, how can implicit desire which is always implicit and a possibility known only to God and unknown to us, be an explicit exception to Cantate Domino and Fr.Leonard Feeney.

There will be a Saint Benedict Center Conference next month and this would be a good opportunity to discuss this issue.-Lionel Andrades

1.

http://catholicism.org/more-catholic-than-the-popes.html


Bro.Francis MICM's Opening Remarks at the SBC Conference