Supports rigorist interpretation of Fr. Leonard Feeney, Vatican Council II, Catechism of the Catholic Church
The Denzinger-Schönmetzer, 3870-3873 indicates that the Catholic Church teaches all Jew in Boston, and the rest of the world, are on the path to Hell unless they convert into the Catholic Church.
The DE is wrongly reported in the media as being critical of Fr. Leonard Feeney when it really supports him with reference to the dogma.
Here is the relevant passage followed by the text of the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Here is the ‘dogma’ the ‘infallible’ statement it refers to.Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.
However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it- Letter of the Holy Office 1949 published in the Denzinger-Schönmetzer, 3870-3873
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/
Vatican Council II also endorses the rigorist interpretation of the dogmas as does the Catechism of the Catholic Church
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
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church , outside the Church there is no salvation means 1) everyone who is saved, explicitly with the baptism of water and Catholic faith or implicitly, unknown to us and known only to God, are saved by Jesus and His Mystical Body the Catholic Church (CCC 846).2) everyone needs Catholic Faith and the baptism of water, and there are no explicit or implicit, exceptions that we can know of, to go to Heaven avoid Hell (CCC 845).Outside the Church there is no salvation and everyone needs to be a formal, explicit member to avoid Hell.
CCC 846 also affirms the rigorist interpretation of the ex cathedra dogma outside the church there is no salvation. All need to enter as through a door, this is the language of the Church Fathers on ecclesiam nulla salus.
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it (Emphasis added)
No where in the Catechism (CCC 836,837,838,846,847,849-852 etc) is there a contradiction of the rigorist interpretation of the ex cathedra dogma. The Catechism is in accord with Fr. Leonard Feeney.
CCC 847 and 848 refer to those saved with a good conscience or invincible ignorance and who are unknown to us human beings but only known to God. They are saved ‘in certain circumstances’ (Letter of the Holy Office 1949).So the ordinary way of salvation is the baptism of water with Catholic Faith; the explicit, formal means of salvation. The ordinary way of salvation for non Catholics according to the Letter of the Holy Office cannot be the baptism of desire, invincible ignorance or a good conscience.
CCC 845 indicates that the only way of salvation that we humans ‘know’ is the explicit, formal means which includes the baptism of water. CCC 847, 848 refer to hypothetical cases, a possibility known only to God and which we can accept only in principle. We do not know any particular case of invincible ignorance.
Neither do we know any person whom Jesus will judge as having a good conscience on the Day of Judgement. So CCC 847,848 (implicit, hypothetical salvation) does not contradict CCC 845 (the need for explicit entry into the Church as if entering a Door).
All people (Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II, and CCC 845) with no exceptions that we know of need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water to go to Heaven and avoid Hell. Outside the Church there is no salvation. The exceptions (CCC 847) are unknown to us.
Lumen Gentium 16 (LG 16) does not contradict the infallible teaching.
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.
Lumen Gentium 16 does not refer to explicit, knowable Baptism of desire and invincible ignorance. Those who will be judged with a good conscience are not explicitly known to us.
If one assumes that LG 16 refers to explicit baptism of desire then there would be trouble also with the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257.
1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation... God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.
CCC 1257 states that 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.
It would violate the Principle of Non Contradiction. It would mean 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, see able and repeatable.
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. There is no confusion with CCC 1257. So then neither does the LG 16 text repeated in the Catechism contradict the ex cathedra dogma and Fr. Leonard Feeney.
The Church Councils and the Church Fathers said everyone, all with no exception, need to be an EXPLICIT member of the Church. Through explicit baptism of water and Catholic Faith.So LG 16 (implicit) does not contradict the dogma (explicit).
Then where is the basis for the ‘development’ of extra ecclesiam nulla salus? How can you interpret it differently from the past with no Church documents or text to state otherwise? If you cite LG 16 it is ludicrous .Your saying there’re is an objectively knowable baptism of desire.
There is no Church Document to support this false media claim.
The rigorist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus can be seen in the text of the dogma. It is confirmed in Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II (’all people need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation). It’s there also in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 845- the Church is like the Ark of Noah in which all need to enter.CCC846 the Church is like a door. These are images used by the Church Fathers for extra ecclesiam nulla salus). Dominus Iesus 20 (salvation is open for all but to receive it one has to enter the Church). Redemptoris Missio 55) in inter religious dialogue it must be remembered that the Church is the ordinary means of salvation).
Redemptoris Missio, Lumen Gentium 16, Mystici Corporis etc acknowledge there can be people saved in other religions. However this is possible only ‘in certain circumstances’ (Letter of the Holy Office 1949, it’s a possibility, a probability, known only to God. It is always unknowable and hidden for us. For us it can only be concept, something we accept in principle.
LG 16 is one of two reasons given for the ‘development ' of doctrine. The second excuse is Fr. Leonard Feeney. Both reasons are factually incorrect.
The Cardinal Ottaviani Letter of the Holy Office 1949 (Haec Suprrema) supported Fr. Leoand Feeney but the Jewish Left media reported the contrary. There was no clarification by the Archbishop of BOst0n, Cardinal Richard Cushing. The secular media repeated that the excommunication was for heresy.
Neither was there an apology from the Jesuits for expelling Fr. Feeney from the community.
The Haec Suprema referred to ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible ‘teaching .The text of the dogma indicates all Jews in Boston need to convert into the Catholic Church to avoid Hell. This was the teaching of Fr. Feeney. Sop how can he be in heresy? A Jesuit apology to Fr. Leonard Feeney’s communities is still overdue.
Also there is no Church Document which says Fr. Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for heresy. The Haec Suprema (published in the Denzinger Encridion) states the ex communication was for ‘disobedience’.
The priest who represented the Church, before the lifting of the ex communication, said in a pres Conference that Fr.Leona4rd Feeney was not asked to recant (Salvation Outside the Church? Sullivan, Paulist Press). He would still hold to the rigorist interpretation of the dogma.
Time showed that it was the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits who are in heresy.
So how can Urbaniana claim a ‘development of doctrine’ based on the case of Fr. Leonard Feeney?
Also how can an ex cathedra dogma (Cantate Domino, Council of Florence) be superseded by the ordinary Magisterium (Vatican Council II, Letter of the Holy Office 1949) even with a factually false interpretation?
Posts
