If you consider the baptism of desire explicitly known to us you will believe Fr. Leonard Feeney, the popes, the saints and the dogma itself is in heresy.
Dear Jim,
Dear Jim,
Praised be Jesus and Our Lady.
Jim: This is my last attempt to deal with your disfiguring Catholic doctrine on “Nulla Salus Extra Ecclesiam”.
Lionel: Extra ecclesiam nulla salus. If you begin with nulla you change the doctrine.
If you consider the baptism of desire explicitly known to us you will believe Fr. Leonard Feeney, the popes, the saints and the dogma itself is in heresy. That’s where you are presently,Jim.
Jim: There is not only lack of clarity in your responses but also continual contradictions in your effort to maintain the dogma that the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation.
Of course, that dogma is as true today as ever,
Lionel: The dogma says every one must be an explicit formal,member of the Church for salvation you deny it with an explicitly known baptism of desire. Soyou cannot really say it is as true today as ever.
For me there is no contradiction, the dogma refers to everyone needing to explicitly enter the Church and the baptism of desire is always implicit.
Jim: but the sound explanation that the Church gives of its truth (resulting for an authentic development of doctrine sanctioned by the supreme Magisterium of the Church) WAS REJECTED by Fr.; Feeney and his Feeneyite followers such as yourself.
Lionel: To change the meaning of an ex cathedra dogma is heresy, you may call it a ‘development of doctrine’. A dogma can be in a process of development before it is defined by a Council but not after.
Also there must be some text or decision of the Magisterium to claim there is a development. There is none for extra ecclesiam nulla salus. There is no text in Vatican Council II or the Catechism to suggest a new meaning. Neither has the Church retracted the dogma.
If Fr. Leonard Feeney rejected the ‘development of doctrine’ then so did the popes, the saints and Vatican Council II. Their message was the same as his.
Jim: 1. You state Fr. Feeney admitted “baptism of desire”. That is false .He did not. He held to a rigorist and narrow interpretation excluding a salvific “baptism of desire”. For him, one had to be a visible member of the Catholic Church to be saved.
However what is clear in this correspondence is that you consider the teaching of the dogma, the popes and saints on this issue as 'rigorist' and 'narrow'.
This would also include Pope Pius XII who in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 referred to the 'dogma', the 'infallible teaching'. The text of that 'dogma' ,Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, would be heresy for you.
The pope mentioned a baptism of desire, and so you would assume that the pope contradicted himself in the Letter, for the baptism of desire can only be explicitly known for you.
The same could be said for other Church documents before Vatican Council II e.g Quanto Conficiamus of Pope Pius IX.
Jim: In “Architects of Confusion” (1975) by the St. Benedict Center explaining Fr. Feeney’s position, we read these excerpts from the August 8, 1949 Letter of Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani, Secretary of the Holy Office”
“,...Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that he at least be united to her by desire and longing....This desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens, but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance, God accepts also an implicit desire...”.
This accurate teaching was directed at refuting Fr. Feeney’’ rigorist error. It clarified the teaching of the Catholic Church on the salvation of those who do not know of Christ and His Church and yet can be saved by a genuine act of the will (animated by charity and characterized by a sincere desire and longing) that results in uniting or joining that individual to the Church,This invisible belonging to the Church means that if they are saved, their salvation is due to their being “within” the Catholic Church. This same teaching is found in Vatican II’s document on the “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church”,#14-16) and in the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” (# 846-847; 1257-1260)
Lionel: I asked you in an earlier post what do you mean by Feenyism. Since many people have different concepts, biases and opinions as to what he said and this good priest is not here to defend himself.
I mentioned two points in which I was in full agreement with Fr. Leonard Feeney.
1. The dogma teaches that every one needs to be a formal member of the Catholic Church of salvation.
2. There is no de facto baptism of desire that we know of.
In a previous post I mentioned that CCC1260 does not mention an explicitly known baptism of desire. I also quoted the entire text.
Lumen Gentium 15 and 16 refer to those saved implicitly and who are not formal members of the Church. They can be saved of course but who they are will always not be known to us.Specific cases are known only to God. So since they are not explicitly known to us they do not contradict Lumen Gentium 14 which indicates every one needs to be a formal member( ‘faith and baptism’) for salvation.
If you considered implicit salvation as explicitly known to us then Lumen Gentium 14-16 would contradict itself.So it should be confusing for you. A mystery.
Jim: However, in this Feeneyite pamphlet, the Church’s official teaching is declared a “classic absurdity”. Fixated in his ecclesiological error, Fr. Feeney had irresponsibly declared Cardinal Cushing to be a heretic and further declared the Letter of the Holy Office to be “heretical”.
Lionel: Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston considered those saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire as explicitly known to us. So he condemned Fr. Feeney and provided a ‘new interpretation’ for the dogma. This is Cushingism. The Cushingites today say there is an explicit baptism of desire but they cannot name any case in particular. This is also heresy. It is rejecting an ex cathedra dogma defined three times and which Pope Pius XII called an ‘infallible teaching’.
Fr. Feeney never went to Rome as he was asked to and his only communication with the Vatican was through the heretical Archbishop. So he could have assumed the Vatican held the same position as Richard Cushing.
Jim: 2. You contradict Fr. Feeney in admitting there is an “implicit baptism of desire”.
Lionel: Please note that I have already said that I do not hold all the views of Fr. Leonard Feeney. However I do not think I contradicted him. He was responding to the heresy of that time.Also on different subjects I would not even know what his view were. The baptism of desire in Magisterial texts assumes baptism of desire is implicit.Fr. Leonard Feeney was familiar with the writings of St.Thomas Aquinas and the Magisterium. Implicit baptism of desire does not contradict the 'rigorist interpretaion of the dogma'. Explicit baptism of desire is a gift of Richard Cushing to the Catholic Church.For Richard Cushing and the Jesuits in Boston explicitly known baptism of desire contradicted the dogma as it was interpreted for centuries.
Jim: You contradict Fr. Feeney in admitting that there “are those who can be saved implicitly”.
Lionel: There is no contradiction between the dogmatic text and implicit salvation. I repeat every one needs to enter the Church explicitly for salvation and all implicit salvation (baptism of desire etc) are unknown to us in particular cases.
So the Letter of the Holy Office says everyone in Boston needs to enter the Church for salvation, and there are no exceptions and if there is anyone with the baptism of desire etc in Boston we would not know, we could not meet such a person there.
Jim: 4. You insist on a rigorist interpretation of the favorite Feeneyite conciliar text “Cantate Domino (1441)
Lionel: There can be only one interpretation.Richard Cushing and the secular left media in Boston gave us the second.
Jim: But nowhere does it even mention a “baptism of desire” (which you say you affirm).
Lionel: Since reason tells us that the baptism of desire can only be implicit.
Jim: Since the teaching of “Cantate Domino” has been clarified and developed by the teaching authority of the Church allowing for “baptism of desire” and “baptism of blood,
Lionel: It has been ‘developed’ by Cardinal Richard Cushing. There is no official Church document which says it has been developed.
It is possible to affirm Cantate Domino and implicit baptism of desire. Your position is not tenable i.e. affirming Cantate Domino and an explicitly known baptism of desire.
No Church document refers to an explicitly known baptism of desire.
Jim: how can you persistently write like a good Feeneyite: “Everyone needs to be an explicit member of the Church for salvation, with no exceptions”.
Lionel: I write that as a good Catholic. That Fr. Leonard Feeney was also one makes me glad. This is the teaching of the popes in the ordinary and extraordinary Magisterium. It’s a long list, and is available on the Internet.
Jim: (1) Fr. Feeney and you may teach that, but the Catholic Church does not, and you only create and perpetuate a false understanding of the dogma in the minds of those who give you any credibility.
Lionel: The dogma is objective text that you can read. I have sent you a copy many times.
Jim: It is the obligation of any sincere seeker of truth to learn Catholic dogma from the official teachers of the Church (the Pope and Bishops in communion with him)
Lionel: I have provided you the texts of the Councils and popes and can do so once again but for some reason, you cannot admit or accept them.
Jim: and not from Lionel Andrades who for years has relied on his own private judgment on a matter of faith confided by Christ to the Pope and Bishops as successors of the Apostles.
Jim: 5. You falsely state that “the Church does not assume that the baptism of desire is explicitly known to us.” But “baptism of desire” may certainly be presumed in the case of catechumens who may have died before receiving baptism of water.
Lionel: Yes, this is true. As a possibility known only to God there can be a baptism of desire. Even the communities of Fr. Leonard Feeney would agree here. If they can provide a definition of the baptism of desire leading to salvation (Catholicism.org) then it means they have accepted a baptism of desire with its conditions-and of course, they do not claim there is any de facto case known to us today.
It is important to note though that a catechumen can be saved with the baptism of desire however we do not know any particular catechumen saved with a baptism of desire.
Jim: 6. You write utterly confusingly concerning “an explicit baptism of desire”. “I do not consider it explicit and known to us in particular cases.”
What does that mean? What is the difference between “implicit baptism” of desire” and “explicit baptism of desire”?
Lionel: Here is the problem, Jim.
Jim: Since the Church teaches there is “baptism of desire” (it is a dogma solemnly defined by the Council of Trent),
Lionel: Yes Jim I accept the baptism of desire of the Council of Trent. I have mentioned it before.
Jim: it is something certainly explicitly taught and held by the faithful.
Lionel: True it is explicitly taught and believed by us.
Jim: Thus, “an implicit baptism of desire” exists as a supernatural reality in the life of grace committed to the Church, and non-Christians can achieve salvation by means of it since, as the Church teaches,
Lionel: Yes, in principle only this can be accepted. As a concept only.
Jim: actual visible membership in the Church is not required in the case of those who are deprived of knowledge of Christ and His one and only Church.
Lionel: Correct. We agree. However I make the distinction between de jure (in principle) and defacto (in reality) you do not.
Jim: If you only mean we cannot know who the un baptized are that are saved by “baptism of desire”, you only state what the Church itself observes.
Lionel: The baptism of desire is an exception. I refer to this extraordinary event and not to people who are not baptized in general.
Jim: If, however, you mean that since we cannot know explicitly that an “implicit baptism of desire” was operative to bring about any individual’s salvation, that person cannot be presumed saved.
Lionel: Since we cannot know explicitly that an implicit baptism of desire was operative to bring about any individuals salvation it just means that we do not know who that person is. In principle he can be saved. De facto we do not know who he is.
Jim: As you wrote, “Everyone needs to be an explicit member of the Church for salvation, with no exceptions.”
Lionel: Correct. De facto. De jure there could be people saved and known to God only.
Jim: The Catholic Church utterly rejects the distortion that the un baptized who die as non-Catholics are necessarily lost when they depart this life.
Lionel: De jure (in principle) a person with the baptism of desire or any other ‘implicit faith’ (to use your term) can be saved. De facto (in reality) every one on earth with no exception needs to enter the Catholic Church with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water to avoid Hell and go to Heaven. (Cantate Domino, Ad Gentes 7, Dominus Iesus 20, CCC 846 etc)
In Christ
Lionel
Posts
