CARDINAL RATZINGER AFFIRMED IN THE CATECHISM THE RIGORIST INTERPRETATION OF THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS? 2

If Cardinal Ratzinger approved the rigorist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus in the Catechism of the Catholic Church http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2010/08/cardinal-ratzinger-affirmed-in.html#links

 then he is accord with Fr. Leonard Feeney.

Before  Pope Benedict XVI last visited the USA it was announced he could be  visiting the Boston Common where he would address Catholics and offer a Mass.

Boston Common!!?

It was at the Boston Common that Fr. Leonard Feeney was famous as a Catholic preacher and many non Catholics were being converted.

The itinerary was changed. He had to stay in Washington and New York and also visit the synagogue of a pro-Israel Rabbi.

Why did the pope want to visit the Boston Common initially?

A clear reading of the Catechism (N.12579) with the defacto-dejure code shows us that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is in accord with Fr. Leonard Feeney and his 'media-hated' rigorist interpretation of the infallible dogma,

Once you have solved the CCC 1257 conundrum you would have to ask was there really a case against Fr. Feeney?

Check it out for yourself.

The Jewish Left media says that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 condemned Fr. Feeney for heresy and so he was excommunicated.

This is false. Here is the proof.

LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949 SUPPORTS FR.LEONARD FEENEY

The first part of the Letter refers to doctrine and the second half to discipline. Yet the two are mixed by the media and Catholics.

The first half the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney affirms the ‘dogma’ the ‘infallible’ teaching .The text of the dogma supports Fr. Feeney. It indicates everyone needs to be a visible member of the Church and there are no exceptions.

1. “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215). Ex cathedra.

2.“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.).Ex cathedra.

3.“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.) Ex cathedra – from the website Catholicism.org and “No Salvation outside the Church”: Link List, the Three Dogmatic Statements Regarding EENS

The second half of the Letter accuses Fr. Feeney of being disobedient. Over time we see that it was the Archbishop of Boston Richard Cushing who was disobedient.

He gave us a new doctrine. It said: everybody needs to enter the church except for those with the Baptism of Desire, in invincible ignorance etc. This is heresy it refutes an infallible teaching. The Archbishop and the Jesuits were saying that everyone does not have to be a visible member of the Catholic Church.Also,incredibly, that there was such a thing as an explicit baptism of desire.

The Archbishop never issued a clarification when the Boston newspapers reported that the Church had changed its centuries-old teaching on extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Even after he received the Letter he did not lift the excommunication on Fr. Feeney. He also had an important role in Vatican Council II.Lumen Gentium 16 reflects his and the Jesuits influence.

We read in the memoirs of the late Senator Edward Kennedy that it was his brother Robert who asked Cardinal Cushing to suppress Fr.Leonard Feeney and St.Benedict Centre.

St. Maximillian Kolbe says that if your Superior teaches heresy you are not obliged to obey. Fr. Leonard Feeney and St. Benedict Centre rightly disobeyed.

They disobyed him even when he issued a decree that no Catholic should visit the St. Benedict Centre and receive the Sacraments from Fr. Feeney. The issue was doctrine.

They disobeyed him and the Jesuits, even when Fr. Feeney was removed from the Jesuit community. The issue was doctrine.

They were faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church and refused to give in to a disobedient Archbishop and  Jesuit Superior who had the support of the secular media. The second part of the Letter shows the feedback the Archbishop had given the Vatican.

The media claimed that Fr. Leonard Feeney was in heresy and not the archbishop. They mix up the first and second part of the Letter.This was the start of confusion among Catholics all over the world. The media changed Catholic doctrine on Mission. 

So one cannot say that the Letter claims that Fr. Leonard Feeney was in heresy. He was excommunicated for disobedience and not heresy. He was not asked to recant . The priest representing the Church asked him  to recite the Creed before the lifting of the excommunication. Fr. Feeney chose the Athanasius Creed. It  says there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.

There is no Church Document which interprets the Letter of the Holy Office.Catholics are familiar with only the misinterpretation of the Letter  done by the media.

Then the secular media claims that Fr. Feeney was in heresy for rejecting the Baptism of Desire.

There is no explicit or implicit Baptism of desire that we can know of reason tells us. Also the ex cathedra dogma did not refer to any explicit Baptism of desire. Neither the past popes or saints have referred to an explicit Baptism of desire. Neither does the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The final false charge against Fr. Feeney is that Vatican Council II (LG 16) proved him wrong.Since those in invincible ignorance, the baptism of desire or a good conscience etc could be saved it is said. So everyone does not have to be a visible, formal member of the Church to avoid Hell as Fr. Feeney taught is the message on Wikipedia.

Since we know that there can be no explicit baptism of desire etc LG 16, is referring to implicit Baptism of desire known only as a concept.

Only God can know when it is explicit. We do not know of any explicit baptism of desire in the present times which is external and which we can see.

We do not know even in principle (implicitly) if there is any Baptism of desire in the present time. However we know as a concept that God is Good and Merciful and so could save a person with the Baptism of Desire.There could be a Baptism of Desire without the Sacraments or one which culminates with the Baptism of water. However for us, either way, it is a concept only, and in this sense only it is implicit.

If the Baptism of desire etc is not explicit then LG 16  does not contradict the infallible teaching or Fr. Leonard Feeney. So then neither does the LG 16 text repeated in the Catechism contradict the ex cathedra dogma and Fr. Leonard Feeney.

There is no case against Fr.Leonard Feeney. The case is closed!

So when the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI wanted to go to Boston was there more to it?!

The Catechism indicates that Feenyism is the official teaching of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Feeneyites include Pope Benedict XVI and those who accept the infallible teaching and Vatican Council II. Communities founded by Fr.Leonard Feeney have been granted canonical status in the diocese of Worcester in the USA. They hold to the rigorist interpretation of the dogma, Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic  Church.

There has been no ‘development of dogma’ after the alleged Boston Heresy Case. Last week I asked a priest if he could cite any Church text which indicated there was a ‘development of doctrine’ with reference to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. I waited in silence as he thought it out. Then he gave up. I told him that the so called 'official interpretation' is only that of the secular media. How can an infallible teaching be developed?

It is the media which would  like us to think that the dogma was developed.

On Oct.13, 1952 Times had a report Religion: I Preach Hatred. It criticizes Fr. Leonard Feeney. The reports says the Archbishop of Boston suspended the Jesuit priest because 'he took literally the Catholic doctrine that “outside the church there is no salvation” i.e. insisting that everyone who is not a good Catholic will go to hell.'

This report which has been made available on the Internet even today, shows the bias which has been cultivated and maintained. Catholics assume it is the official teaching of the Church. Rubbish!

Fr. Leonard Feeney taught the literal Catholic teaching which can be seen in the text of the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which TIME would dare not publish. It indicates all Jews and other non Catholics are on the path to Hell unless they convert into the Catholic Church, the only Church of the Jewish Messiah with whom God made an everlasting Covenant for all time.

The dogma also indicates that all Jews in Boston are on the way to Hell as Fr. Leonard Feeney taught. This was the message of Pope Pius XII and Cardinal Ottaviani in the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney 1949. The Letter supported Fr. Feeney. Its message would be repeated in Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7, Lumen Gentium 14 and 16). Pope Pius XII in affirming the 'dogma' the 'infallible' teaching was not only supporting Fr.Leonard Feeney who was being maligned by the media at that time, he was really saying all Jews in Boston, needed to convert to avoid Hell and go to Heaven. This is not the stuff to make the New York Times and its affiliates happy.

Yet the same message would be  repeated by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in the formulation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is clear when you unravel the CCC 1257 mystery!

_______________________________________________________________________

Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door.-Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II


Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.-Lumen Gentium 16, Vatican Council II.

CARDINAL RATZINGER AFFIRMED IN THE CATECHISM THE RIGORIST INTERPRETATION OF THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS?-1

When the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) was produced Cardinal Ratzinger, now our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, was asking us to use reason in interpreting CCC 1257 on the Necessity of Baptism. To very many Catholics CCC is ‘a mystery’ a riddle, something unsolvable. A puzzle.

When you reason, and know, that faith and reason compliment each other (Fides et Ratio) then the answer is as clear as light. Or at least after you begin to reason and find the answer.

But where is the solution? Where is the magical text which can make us say, “Oh! It’s so obvious!”

Remember the Holy Father was not only a theologian but also a professor of philosophy. One of the subjects Catholic seminarians are taught in Philosophy is Logic.

But even with the knowledge of Logic, CCC baffles you. If you do not have the clue you can reason all day, with a false premise.

The 1257 conundrum says on the surface everyone needs to de facto enter the Catholic Church with Baptism; the Baptism of water for salvation. And of course Catholics give the Baptism of water to adults only when they have Catholic Faith. So the first part of CCC 1257 is simple. It is traditional Catholic teaching everyone needs to be baptized with water for salvation. Everyone needs to be a formal member of the Catholic Church.

Then comes the block buster, the knock out for the average good Catholic student of philosophy. CCC 1257 also says, God is not limited to the Sacraments. So the Sacrament of Baptism is not necessary for some, or many, for salvation.Figure that out!

Wait.

It’s not a mystery!?!

Not if you have the text with the clue.

The clue came with two phrases used in the Introduction to Dominus Iesus(2000). Many years later for me.

The two all important words, priceless for philosophy and theology seminarians, were de facto and de jure.

Here is the key to unraveling the mystery of the CCC 1257 puzzle.It is now possible to read CCC 1257 without violating the Principle of Non Contradiction.

The first part of CCC 1257 refers to de facto salvation for all, with no exceptions. The second part of CCC 1257 refers to de jure salvation (in principle), and ‘in certain circumstances’ (Letter of the Holy Office 1949) and which is known only to God.

CCC 1257 (first part) says de facto everyone needs to be a visible, card carrying member, of the Catholic Church to avoid Hell ( ex cathedra Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441, Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II and CCC 1257!).

There are no exceptions says the dogma. In reality there are no exceptions. De facto everyone needs to enter the Church. De facto (explicitly) none of us can know of anyone in particular being saved without the Sacrament of the Baptism of water.

So then why does just about every Catholic say, ‘ everyone needs to enter the Catholic Church EXCEPT for those in invincible ignorance or with the Baptism of desire ’?

Duh!

De facto I cannot know of any one who has the Baptism of desire. Only God can judge. Even the person who receives this grace may not know it.

In principle (dejure) I cannot say that there has been a Baptism of desire in the past. Nor do I know if any one has received a baptism of desire in the present times. We are dealing with a straw man. A hypothetical issue. Just a concept.

If we do not know a single case explicitly or implicitly of someone having the Baptism of desire or invincible ignorance or a good conscience then how can we say everyone needs to enter the Church EXCEPT for these exceptional cases, about which I and you do not have any clue.

The first part of CCC 1257 is telling us that there is no explicit Baptism of Desire, invincible ignorance or a good conscience that we can know of .So everyone with no exception must be a visible member of the Church to see Heaven.

So the first part of CCC1257 refers to de facto explicit salvation and the second part to dejure in principlesalvation which is known to only to God so they do not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction.

So in principle only (de jure) as a concept only the Catechism of the Catholic Church is saying that someone can be saved without the Sacraments and this would be known to only God.

So if the first part of CCC 1257 refers to de facto salvation and the second part to de jure, in principle salvation then this opens up a whole new realm of theology.

It means Lumen Gentium 16 (LG) could refer to de jure salvation.

If LG 16 is dejure then it is not in conflict with Ad Gentes 7,which says all people need Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water to avoid Hell.

If it is not in conflict with AG 7 then it is not in opposition with the ex cathedra dogma which says everyone needs to be a visible, formal member of the Catholic Church to go to Heaven and there are no exceptions(de facto). That’s logic!

It means we could have a new interpretation of Vatican Council II and the dogma. Yes!- said two priests last week.

The interpretation which makes sense and does not conflict with the infallible teaching (Cantate Domino) is:

Everyone needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church for salvation and there are no exceptions and if there is anyone in invincible ignorance, with the Baptism of Desire or a good conscience it will be known only to God.

We are back to the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which is in accord with Vatican Council II and  the Cathechism of the Catholic Church.

Was this what Cardinal Ratzinger was saying once you had the de facto- de jure clue? Did he interpret the Catechism of the Catholic Church in accord with Tradition and the dogma?


Continued Part 2: http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2010/08/cardinal-ratzinger-affirmed-in_16.html#links

______________________________________________________________________

Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door.-Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II




Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.-Lumen Gentium 16, Vatican Council II.