Father Feeney said on page 25 of his book '' The Bread of Life '', it is now BAPTISM OF WATER , or damnation. If you do not desire(sic) you cannot be justified and if YOU DO NOT GET(sic) YOU CANNOT BE SAVED.
Lionel : It is important to make the explicit-implicit, known-unknown and
objective-subjective distinction.
'', it is now
BAPTISM OF WATER, or damnation. If you do not desire you cannot be justified.
And if YOU DO NOT GET YOU CANNOT BE SAVED.
Explicitly, in real life, practically,
objectively all need Catholic faith and the baptism of water and there are no objective
cases of the baptism of desire etc.
The norm for salvation is faith and the baptism
of water. This is the explicit norm, the objective norm. We can teach someone
the faith and check it. We can give someone the baptism of water and view it.
The baptism of desire is always implicit,
unknown and subjective. We cannot know of any explicit case. This is something
obvious and it was known to the Church Fathers and popes and saints of the
Middle Ages.
So there is no confusion here. Fr. Leonard
Feeney was correct and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made an objective
mistake when it projected unknown cases of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance as being objective and known examples of salvation outside the Church. Cardinal
Richard Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston and Pope Pius XII made a mistake.
There could not be any known practical exception for Feeneyite EENS, or EENS of
the Jesuits of the Middle Ages.
If someone is saved with the baptism of desire
it is known only to God and is not relevant to the strict interpretation
of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It would be unknown to us.
So the dogma EENS-stands. It is either faith and the baptism of water or damnation.
The Athanasius Creed says the same and does not
mention any exceptions.
So we can affirm the strict dogmatic interpretation of EENS and also hypothetical-only, cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance. We do not have to reject either of the two. However the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was heretical, schismatic and non traditional. It was rejecting the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed, Syllabus of Errors, Quanta Cura etc with an irrational interpretation of BOD, BOB and I.I.The False Premise in the interpretation of BOD, BOB and I.I creates heresy and schism and the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.With the False Premise i.e visible cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible it was either BOD, BOB and I.I or EENS.
The liberals,Lefebvrists,Thucs and others cannot say that it is either faith and the baptism of water or damnation, since there are alleged visible cases of BOD, BOB and I.I for them.-Lionel Andrades
No comments:
Post a Comment