The Letter of the Holy Office only mentions the baptism of desire as did the Council of Trent. It does not say that the baptism of desire is explicitly known to us. It did not say that it was an exception to the dogma. Neither does the Council of Trent make this claim.
There are three defined dogmas on extra ecclesiam nulla salus. All three agree with Fr. Leonard Feeney. The three dogmas http://catholicism.org/category/outside-the-church-there-is-no-salvation on extra ecclesiam nulla salus state as does Fr. Leonard Feeney that every one needs to be a visible member of the Church for salvation i.e. every one needs Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.
They do not mention any exceptions as the baptism of desire etc since it is known that they are always implicit and not exceptions to the dogma. This was also Fr. Leonard Feeney's teaching.
The Letter of the Holy Office does not specifically say that he was excommunicated for heresy it mentions disobedience. One has to assume that he was excommunicated for heresy.
St. Pius XII uses the standard defacto-dejure analysis in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. The secular media interprets the Letter with the defacto-defacto model. It seems irrational. It does not make sense.
For example:
De facto-dejure model
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 refers to the dogma and so says that everyone de facto needs to enter the Church for salvation and there are no defacto exceptions.It also says de jure, in principle and known only to God, a non Catholic can be saved with the baptism of desire ‘in certain circumstances’ (Letter of the Holy Office 1949).
Defacto-defacto model
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 according to the secular media says every one de facto needs to enter the Church for salvation and there are de facto exceptions.
For the media and the liberals there are those who can be saved defacto with the baptism of desire which is defacto known to us.If the defacto-dejure analysis is not used some Magisterial texts would appear odd.
The defacto-dejure analysis is not a new theology. It’s a philosophical way of looking at things. The defacto- dejure analysis is used in theology. It’s a rational way of analysis. It clarifies for instance what is known, with what can be potentially known. It clarifies what is known in actuality (defacto) with what is known as a possibility (dejure).
Whether we are aware of it or not, we could be using either the defacto-dejure analysis or the irrational defacto-defacto model.
The defacto-dejure analysis was used in Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church etc. It does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction.
If the baptism of desire was not dejure, accepted only in principle, and if instead it was de facto and known to us, in personal cases, then the Letter of the Holy Office would contradict itself. t would mean Pope Pius XII says every one de facto needs to enter the Church (as mentioned in 'the dogma' ) but some people can also be defacto saved with the baptism of desire etc 'in certain circumstances'(Letter of the Holy Office).
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).
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’ to which the Letter also refers. It does not say that popes and Church Fathers as referring to those saved in general with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance.
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.
It is not contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction when it is assumed that everyone de facto needs the baptism of water for salvation and some people in the present times in principle, de jure , can be saved without the baptism of water.
It is not a contradiction to say that everyone needs the baptism of water for salvation, this is an actuality, and to also say that some non Catholics’ in certain circumstances’ (Letter of the Holy Office 1949) can be saved without the baptism of water and it would be known only to God, this is a possibility.
Since one is an actuality and the other a possibility it does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction.
The Holy Office Letter of 1949 acknowledges there was a ‘controversy’. The controversy included the Archbishop and Jesuits of Boston.
Since the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 mentions ‘the dogma’ the Letter is a criticism of the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits at Boston College. So in this sense the Letter of the Holy Office was critical of the Archbishop of Boston. Since there were no known cases of the baptism of desire etc you cannot accommodate the Cushing Error and assume that the baptism of desire is a part of the dogma. An objective reading of the text of the dogma shows that there is no mention of any exceptions.
There are some parts of the Letter critical of Fr.Leonard Feeney who was excommunicated for disobedience. He did not go to Rome when called.There were issues which were not clarified.
There are some parts of the Letter critical of Fr.Leonard Feeney who was excommunicated for disobedience. He did not go to Rome when called.There were issues which were not clarified.
"From what has been said it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical From the Housetops, fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without."
The article it refers to was written by Raymond Karam and not Fr.Leonard Feeney. Karam defended the dogma without using the defacto-dejure clarification. Neither did the Holy Office and the Archbishop mention this reasoning which avoids contradicting the Principle of Non Contradiction. So it is possible that all the persons in the controversy were talking across to each other. There was confusion.
Here they could have assumed at that time that a cardinal could not teach error and heresy .So they believed the cardinal against the priest, who was also expelled from his religious community."From these declarations which pertain to doctrine it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a “Defender of the Faith,” and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities..."
We now know that ‘the lawful authorities’ in Boston, were saying that there was a defacto known baptism of desire etc, and this contradicted the interpretation of the dogma by Fr. Leonard Feeney and St. Benedict Center. The Richard Cushing Error of the explicilty known baptism of desire etc is irrational and not a doctrine of the Catholic Church.
Later the Holy Office would approve the lifting of the excommunication without Fr. Leonard Feeney having to recant or make any changes in his writings.
The Letter mentions the dogma and this is a criticism of the Archbishop. Since the dogma does not mention any exceptions as did the Archbishop.
The Letter mentions those who can be saved with a genuine desire. The Letter does not claim that these cases are defacto known to us and so contradict the dogma. This is a criticism of the Archbishop.
So the Letter of the Holy Office supports Fr.Leonard Feeney on doctrine and is in accord with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
So the Letter of the Holy Office supports Fr.Leonard Feeney on doctrine and is in accord with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
-Lionel Andrades
____________________________________________
SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2009
____________________________________________
SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2009
CDF(Holy Office) supports Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston in Letter
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 25, 2009
POPE PIUS XII STATED ALL JEWS IN BOSTON NEED TO ENTER THE CATHOLIC CHURCH FOR SALVATION
POPE PIUS XII SAID EVERY JEW, ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN AND MUSLIM NEEDS TO CONVERT TO AVOID HELL
SUNDAY, JUNE 20, 2010
CUSHING DOCTRINE SAYS LETTER OF HOLY OFFICE (1949) VIOLATES PRINCIPLE OF NON CONTRADICTION
WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 2011
THE HOLY FATHER POPE BENEDICT XVI IS A CUSHINGITE
MONDAY, AUGUST 1, 2011
Quanto Conficiamus of Pope Pius IX does not say that we know the baptism of desire explicitly
THURSDAY, JULY 28, 2011
VENERABLE POPE PIUS XII SAID ALL NON CATHOLICS NEED TO ENTER THE CHURCH WITH NO EXCEPTION TO AVOID HELL
Posts
