Wednesday, September 21, 2011

THE MAGISTERIAL TEXTS, LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949, VATICAN COUNCIL II ETC USE THE DEJURE-DEFACTO LOGIC

Implicit baptism of desire, invincible ignorance are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. If they were explicitly known they would be exceptions.

Jim: Fr. Feeney was not excommunicated for heresy but for disobedience to lawful Church authority.

Lionel: Jim we agree here.

Fr. Leonard Feeney’s only contact with the lawful Church authority was the Archbishop of Boston Richard Cushing. The cardinal-archbishop was in heresy. He assumed every body with no exception did not have to be a visible, explicit member of the Church for salvation. The lawful Church authority wanted this priest to assume that those saved with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance were explicitly known to us and so an exception to the dogma.

Jim: But the error which he advocated and you support received severe censure by the Holy See in the Holy Office Letter “Supremae haec sacra”.

Lionel: The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 referred to 'the dogma', the infallible teaching'. Which dogma and infallible teaching did Venerable Pope Pius XII refer to? I have asked you a few times before and you have not answered.

The dogma Cantate Domino, Council of Florence tells us that every one needs to be a visible member of the Church. The dogma does not mention explicit baptism of desire or invincible ignorance. So how could Fr. Feeney be in error?

Cantate Domino, Council of Florence could also be considered a censure of the Archbishop of Boston to whom the Letter of the Holy Office was sent. Since, ‘the dogma’ does not mention like the Archbishop, those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. Since the baptism of desire etc is always implicit it does  not contradict the centuries- old interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They are not exceptions. So how could Fr. Leonard Feeney be in error for saying everybody needs to be a visible member of the Church and there are no exceptions? This is what the dogma states as do the popes, Church Fathers and saints.

Jim: You do not understand and explain the dogma of NO Salvation Outside the Catholic Faith” as the Church and its Magisterium explain it.

Lionel: Yes I agree that I explain the dogma as the Magisterium texts explain it including Vatican Council II.

There is no Church document which says invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are defacto known to us in personal cases. Neither does any Magisterial text claim that these are ‘exceptions’ to the dogma.

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 mentions those who can be saved in certain circumstances with the baptism of desire. It does not say that this contradicts ‘the dogma’ or ‘the infallible teaching’ that the Letter also refers to.

If the baptism of desire was not dejure, accepted only in principle, and if it was de facto and known to us, in personal cases then the Letter of the Holy Office would contradict itself.

Jim: When you keep repeating your spin on the dogma that “we do not know explicitly who is saved by baptism of desire or invincible ignorance”, you imply to your readers that no non-Christian or non-Catholic is, in fact, so saved.

Lionel: I make the dejure-defacto distinction which is there already in the Magisterial texts e.g. Letter of the Holy Office, Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7, Lumen Gentium 14), Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257,846 etc.You leave the issue vague and do not make this distinction. You could be in heresy for implying that the baptism of desire etc is defacto and so contradicts the dogma, which anyway you have not affirmed.

I agree with you I am saying that de facto every non Catholic needs to enter the Church for salvation and there are no exceptions.( LG 14, AG 7, Cantate Domino, Dominus Iesus 20, CCC 845, 846 etc).

Since invincible ignorance is implicit, we accept it only in principle (de jure). It is not an exception to the dogma.It is a possibility known to God but not an exception to the dogma. 

Jim: You thus render the Church’s teaching on baptism of desire or invincible ignorance in practice inefficacious.

Lionel: The baptism of desire and invincible ignorance since it is implicit and not explicit are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus I repeat. Neither are they exceptions to Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG16) which indicates Catholic faith and the baptism of water are the ordinary means of salvation.

LG 16 (invincible ignorance) is not the ordinary means of salvation and neither is it even an exception to the dogma.

Here is Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II. 

7. This missionary activity derives its reason from the will of God, "who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, Himself a man, Jesus Christ, who gave Himself as a ransom for all" (1 Tim. 2:45), "neither is there salvation in any other" (Acts 4:12). 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. Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it." Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6), yet a necessity lies upon the Church (1 Cor. 9:16), and at the same time a sacred duty, to preach the Gospel. And hence missionary activity today as always retains its power and necessity…
The passage underscored in yellow tells us that Catholic faith and the baptism of water are the ordinary means of salvation for all. The passage in red mentions those who are lost and are known only to God. The passage in green mentions those who can be saved and are known only to God and this passage does not claim that these non Catholics are de facto known to us or that they are exceptions to the passage in yellow or the dogma

The passage in yellow is defacto and that in green is de jure. When we read magisterial texts like the one above we have to use the defacto-dejure distinction otherwise there will be confusion. If you consider the passage in green as defacto it would contradict the passage in yellow.

Jim you are in first class heresy. You pray the Creed, ‘I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church’. You know that the Holy Spirit has guided the Church to proclaim the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. You will not affirm it. The dogma does not mention invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire.

You claim that the Church teaches invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. Where is the Church document which says those saved in invincible ignorance or with the baptism of desire are explicitly known to us or contradict the dogma?

You are contradicting the Creed.

In Christ

Lionel