THOSE WHO CONSIDER THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE AS EXPLICITLY KNOWN TO US WILL BELIEVE FR.LEONARD FEENEY AND THE POPES WERE IN HERESY

The error of Cushingism is so widespread in the Catholic Church that people assume it is the teaching of the Church.

Jim- He was excommunicated for disobedience

Lionel: I agree. It was not for heresy.

Jim: but his error on “Nulla Salus Extra Ecclesiam: was clearly rejected by the Letter of the Holy Office “Suprema Haec Sacra” (published 1952), which declared without ambiguity that non-members of the Church can be saved.

Lionel: The Suprema Haec Sacra was a repetition of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 issued three years later. It did not say anything new. Both the documents mention that a non Catholic can be saved with the baptism of desire. You assume that the baptism of desire is explicitly known to us. The document does not make such a claim.

It does not assume that implicit baptism of desire is explicit and so contradicts the dogma. This is the secular media propaganda.

Implicit baptism of desire does not contradict Cantate Domino, Council of Florence and neither does it contradict Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II.

So we agree that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and the Haec Suprema nowhere says that Fr. Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for heresy.

The Suprema haec sacra insisted again upon the fact that the declaration: "there is no salvation outside the Church" is an infallible statement which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach, and it qualified this statement as a dogma…-Msgr.Fenton

The Suprema haec called the dogma, infallible. The text of the dogma Cantate Domino has the same ‘rigorist interpretation’ as Fr. Leonard Feeney. It also does not mention an ‘explicit’ baptism of desire. This was the error of Archbishop Richard Cushing and present day Cushingites. The error is so widespread, with the non Catholic media promoting it, that Catholics assume it is the teaching of the Church.

Jim: It is not a question that we DO NOT KNOW who are the non-members of the Church that are saved, but rather of the dogmatic truth that they can be saved (which was denied by Feeney and obscured by you).

Lionel: Assuming Fr. Leonard Feeney said that there is no de facto baptism of desire case which we know of or cannot know of. It does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which says everyone needs to be an explicit member of the Church for salvation, with no exceptions.

Assuming Fr. Leonard Feeney said that there is no de jure baptism of desire i.e. he rejects the baptism of desire even in principle. It still does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which says everyone needs to be an explicit member of the Church for salvation and there are no exceptions.

The Suprema Haec and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 accept in principle that there could be persons saved with the baptism of desire. You accept it in principle and de facto i.e. you believe we can know the baptism of desire de facto and explicitly. If this was true it would mean Pope Pius XII in the Letter affirmed the dogma (strict interpretation) and then also denied it with an (explicitly known) baptism of desire.

Jim: You hold to a variant version of Feeneyism since you allow for a baptism of desire though holding that we can never know who may be saved by that means.

Lionel: Fr. Leonard Feeney like the saints and popes taught every one needs to be a member of the Catholic Church through Catholic Faith and the baptism of water and there were no exceptions .There was no baptism of desire case that we knew of. This has been the official teaching of the Church.

Jim: This is clearly false. You blatantly contradict the official teaching of the Church as stated in The Catechism of the Catholic Church (#1257-1260

Lionel: CCC 1257 on the Necessity of Baptism. It says the Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water (extra ecclesiam nulla salus!). CCC 1257 also says that God is not limited to the Sacraments. There are those who can be saved implicitly and it would be known only to God. We can only accept this de jure (in principle). De facto no one knows any such case. So it does not contradict dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or the earlier part of CCC 1257. CCC 1257 and 1260 like other magisterial texts assumes the baptism of desire is always implicit and known only to God.

You are unable to cite any explicit baptism of desire case in Boston or some other city.

Jim: What you utterly fail to notice is that nowhere in that document does it speak of a “baptism of desire”. So where did that come from?

Lionel: Correct. Nowhere in Cantate Domino is the baptism of desire mentioned neither are those saved in invincible ignorance are mentioned. The Church Councils had read the Church Fathers they knew that the baptism of desire or being saved in invincible ignorance was a possibility. They also knew that it was implicit and so did not contradict the dogma which indicated every one must be an explicit member of the Church for salvation. They knew that you could not meet anyone on earth who was in this exceptional category. So why mention it?

Jim: You are clearly at odds with the teaching of the Catholic Church with your Feeneyite denial of the salvation of non-members of the Church, and denial of the “baptism of desire”.

Lionel: I have affirmed the baptism of desire only unlike you I do not consider it explicit and known to us in particular cases.

In its very nature the baptism of desire can only be accepted in principle, as a possibility and can never be de facto.

However you assume that it is de facto and so you assume that Fr. Leonard Feeney denied the baptism of desire with his rigorist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Fr. Feeney did not deny the baptism of desire; he was just telling you something objective, that, there can not ever be a de facto, explicit baptism of desire known to us humans.

As mentioned above the Letter of the Holy Office and the Haec Suprema affirm the dogma and also an implicit baptism of desire. There is no contradiction.

Jim: So you are not actually in agreement with “Cantate Domino” which says nothing about any “baptism of desire”.

Lionel: Cantate Domino says nothing about the baptism of desire true, since those who formulated it were rational and intelligent people and were not burdened with false propaganda about implicit baptism of desire being explicit and known to us in the present times, in particular cases. They were not told that the Church now teaches that there can be an explicit baptism of desire even though we know rationally it is implicit and known only to God.

Jim: You are not rational in denying what the Church actually teaches: that there is “baptism of desire” available to non-members of the Church which “brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament” (“CCC, #1258) and “It may be supposed that such persons [non-Catholics] would have desired Baptism EXPLICITLY if they had known its necessity.” (CCC, #1260).

Lionel: Again I repeat I accept an implicit baptism of desire in principle. There can be no explicit baptism of desire known to us.

CCC 1260 mentions the baptism of desire but does not assume like you that it is explicitly known to us in particular cases and so contradicts the rigorist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

They would have desired baptism explicitly and of course they would meet the conditions for salvation and God would saved them. However we do not explicitly know any particular case and so it does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Jim: “Nulla Salus Extra Ecclesiam” must be interpreted as the Church does, not as you do. (See Catechism of the Catholic Church, 846-7)

Lionel: True it must be interpreted as the Church does and I have provided Church texts to support my view.

I have interpreted the baptism of desire as implicit you have interpreted it as explicit and known to us.

There is no text which claims it is explicitly know to us. While reason tells us that the baptism of desire can only be implicit and known to God.

Jim: No, Lionel, you have not,

Lionel:Cantate Domino, Council of Florence (which does not mention an explicit baptism of desire and assumes that the baptism of desire is always implicit and so does not contradict the dogma)

Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II which says all need the baptism of water for salvation.

CCC 846 which says all need to enter the Church ‘as through a door’.

CCC 845 which says the Church is the only Ark of Salvation which saves in the Flood and God wants all people to be united in the Catholic Church (CCC 845).

Dominus Iesus 20 which says salvation is open to all but to receive it one needs to enter the Church. Etc.

Jim: and you are found in direct contradiction to the teaching of Vatican II,

Lionel: Lumen Gentium 16, Vatican Council II says a non Catholic can be saved in invincible ignorance. I accept it knowing that all those saved implicitly are known only to God. So LG 16 does not contradict Cantate Domino or Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II.

Jim: the latest Ecumenical Council of the Church regarding the salvation of non-members of the Church, and to the 1952 Letter of the Holy Office censuring Fr. Feeney’s opinion,

Lionel: You have admitted here that he was not censured for heresy. He was excommunicated for disobedience. The Letter referred to ‘the dogma’ the ‘infallible’ teaching. The dogma indicates all non Catholics with no exception in Boston need to enter the Church formally for salvation. You are unable to affirm the dogma. Since you believe that the baptism of desire is explicit and then you posit it against the dogma.

Jim : and to the earlier encyclical of Pope Pius XII, “Mystici Corporis” (1943) which clearly stated: “those who do not belong to the VISIBLE structure of the Catholic Church...may be directed towards the Redeemer’s Mystical Body by a sort of unconscious desire and intention.”

Lionel: Correct. We accept the baptism of desire as a means of salvation in Mystici Corporis. Where we differ is that you assume it is explicit and known in particular cases and so it contradicts the dogma and Fr. Leonard Feeney.

Jim: What you are saying in your convoluted manner is that BECAUSE we do not know who is saved IMPLICITLY, he can only be saved by an explicit visible membership in the Catholic Church.

Lionel: I am saying that because we do not know who is saved implicitly we cannot say that the person saved with the baptism of desire etc contradicts the dogma.

This is not to be confused with the dogma which says that every one needs to be an explicit, visible member of the Church for salvation.

Cushingites first assume that Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance) refers to explicitly known cases. Then it is assumed that Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma, Fr. Leonard Feeney, the popes and the saints.

Jim: That conclusion does not follow. But it does explain why you reject the efficacy of “baptism by desire”.

Lionel: In principle I accept the ‘efficacy ‘of the baptism of desire. So do the communities of Fr. Leonard Feeney. You will even find a definition of the baptism of desire on their website (Catholicism.org). De facto we could not know any particular case.

Jim: Then, again, you contradict yourself by admitting there are those who are saved IMPLICITLY but at the same time reject the Church’s teaching that this is due to the efficacy of an authentic “baptism of desire” !!!!!

Lionel: There would be a contradiction if I considered the baptism of desire explicitly known like the baptism of water.

I admit in principle there can be those saved implicitly and I reject any claim of an explicitly known baptism of desire while I accept an implicit baptism of desire.

Jim: You confuse and disfigure Catholic doctrine on the salvation of non-members of the Catholic Church. You must come to grips with your being at odds with the actual teaching of the Church regarding the proper interpretation of “Nulla Salus Extra Ecclesiam”.

Lionel: I can understand why you feel this way since you do not make a distinction in your writing here between implicit and explicit baptism of desire. At other times you have admitted that none of us knows of any case of the baptism of desire and it is only known to God.

In Christ

Lionel

Photos  from the website of the Sisters of St. Benedict Center, USA.