Dominican interpretation is heresy since it contradicts an infallible teaching. Also there is no Magisterial text which supports it
Here is the text of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Pope Pius XII called it 'the dogma', 'the infallible teaching' in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney.
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 http://nosalvationoutsideofthecatholicchurch.blogspot.com/
Here is Ad Gentes 7 with the same message.
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.
The secular media never quotes Ad Gentes 7. The interpretation of Vatican Council II in the secular media, Catholics believe is the official teaching of the Church. even though there is no text in Vatican Council II which supports this interpretation. The interpretation indicates that Lumen Gentium 16 (LG 16) contradicts the infallible teaching when in reality LG 16 supports it.
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.
We do not know any case of explicit Baptism of desire. Only God can judge.So why has implicit Baptism of Desire to be placed in opposition, as an exception, to everyone needing Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water, with no exceptions for salvation?
The consistent errors are:
1. They assume Lumen Gentium 16 refers to explicit, and not implicit, Baptism of desire and invincible ignorance.
2. They seem unaware that the dogma is ex cathedra, like the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady, and says everyone with no exception needs to be a formal member of the Church to avoid Hell.It supersedes the ordinary Magisterium.
3. They ignore Ad Gentes 7 which says all people need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation.
4. They make no distinction between de facto and dejure salvation.
They would have trouble with the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257 which says the Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the Baptism of water and also says God is not limited to the Sacraments. There could be some,or many,saved without the Sacrament of Baptism.
Since they believe LG 16 refers to explicit Baptism of Desire they violate the Principle of Non Contradiction. They would be reasoning that de facto everyone needs the Baptism of Water and Catholic Faith to go to Heaven (AG 7,CCC 1257) and de facto there can also be people saved without the Sacrament of the Baptism of water (LG 16, CCC 1257). It does not make sense.
However if they considered LG 16 as referring to de jure, implicit salvation, something that we can accept in principle but which is only known to God ( it is only explicit for God and we do not know a single case of Baptism of Desire) then it would not violate the Principle on Non Contradiction. It would mean de facto every one needs to explicitly enter the Catholic Church while de jure, in principle there could be some people saved with implicit baptism of desire etc.
There is no explicit or implicit Baptism of desire that we can know of reason tells us. Neither the past popes or saints have referred to an explicit Baptism of desire. Neither does the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
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. Something hypothetical. A probability. A possibility.
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 whenever and if God wanted.
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.
DOMINICAN PRIESTS AT ST.MARY MAJORS ROME
I have spoken to some of the Dominican priests who are regular Confessors at St. Mary Majors Basilica, Rome over the last few weeks: Fr.Joseph Tran O.P, Fr. Lucas Dempsey O.P, Fr. Wojciech Morowski O.P and Fr. Timothy Brouser.
I have asked them if the text of the ex cathedra dogma, which I placed before them, says that everyone with no exception needs to be a formal, visible member of the Catholic Church for salvation. They are afraid to answer yes, or they do not want to answer yes for some other reason, when they read the text.
They believe that Vatican Council II, LG 16 indicates that those who are in invisible ignorance, with the Baptism of Desire or a good conscience can be saved and so they are exceptions to the dogma saying there are no exceptions.
So they have chosen to consider LG explicit when it can never be explicit to us but only to God. They do not know if God has chosen to give a single person the Baptism of Desire in the present times or over the last 100 years. For us LG 16 is always only a concept and so in this sense implicit. There is no de facto invincible ignorance that we can know of. There is no explicit conscience of someone whom we can judge as good. There is no explicit (seeable) or implicit (in principle) Baptism of desire that we know of. So how can we use a theology; an interpretation of LG 16 as being opposed to the infallible teaching which says : there are no exceptions and everyone needs Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water to go to Heaven.
So instead I can affirm the dogma and LG 16 with the interpretation which says:
Everyone with no exception needs to be a formal, visible member of the Catholic Church to go to Heaven and avoid Hel and if there is anyone with the Baptism of desire, invincible ignorance or a good conscience, ‘in certain circumstances’ (Letter of the Holy Office 1949) it will be known only to God.
This interpretation of Vatican Council II is in accord with the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and other Church Documents (Dominus Iesus 20, CDF, Notification, Fr.Dupuis S.J, 2001, Redemptoris Missio 55 etc)
The ‘Dominican interpretation’ is heresy. Since it says Vatican Council II contradicts the ex cathedra dogma. It also suggests that the pope is not infallible ex cathedra. This would be a rejection of the dogma on the infallibility of the pope.
Yet it is this very heresy which many Catholics repeat when they say like a mantra, 'everyone needs to enter the Church EXCEPT for those in invincible ignorance etc.'
This heresy originated in the 1940s with the Archbishop and the Jesuits of Boston including the Rector of Boston College. The Jesuits at Boston College today still maintain the heresy.
So where is the text from Vatican Council II or a Magisterial Document which supports the interpretation of the Dominicans?
None.
The Dominicans at St. Mary Major could not cite a single citation in their support. There is no Magisterial text which supports them.
Instead Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) repeated the message of Pope Pius XII’s Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston. It indicated that all Jews in Boston (the Jews were opposing Fr. Leonard Feeney who was converting many of them) are on the way to Hell unless they enter the Catholic Church (‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible teaching’-Letter of the Holy Office 1949).
It was the Archbishop of Boston Richard Cushing, the Jesuits and the Jewish Left media which allowed the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 (Haec Suprema) to be misinterpreted. Also the priest was slandered continuously when he was only repeating the lmessage of the infallible teaching. Vatican Council II, years later would support Fr. Leonard Feeney on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
_________________________________________________________________
Posts
