I have received an e-mail from Brother Thomas Augustine M.I.C.M saying that the following report on this blog, does not represent the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary on Vatican Council II.
“Monday, November 5, 2012 Father Leonard Feeney 's community celebrates the Year of the Faith:model for SSPX”.
He wrote this report ' does not reflect our position on Vatican II.'
I have just written to Brother Thomas Augustine asking for a clarification on the points raised in two reports about the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.Here it is. -L.A
______________________________________________
Dear Brother Thomas Augustine MICM,
Thanks for responding.I remember corresponding with you though I was confused as to which of the two communities you were at.Now I am not.
However it is not clear still:Brother Andre Marie MICM is the Prior of one community and you are the Rector or Prior of this community of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary ?
I recall asking you repeatedly if the baptism of desire was an explicit exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus . You did not reply. Neither was this question answered by the other community.
Perhaps we could finally clarify the issue. Your reply to the following two questions would be helpful.
1. Do we know in the year 2012 any one saved in invincible ignorance, the baptism of desire, a good conscience, seeds of the word (AG 7), imperfect communion with the Church ?
2. If we do not know any of these cases in 2012 can they be considered exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors?
With reference to the two reports on EucharistandMission are you saying:
1.Ad Gentes 7 is contradicted by Lumen Gentium 16 ?
2.Vatican Council II contradicts extra ecclesiam nulla salus?
3. You reject the baptism of desire or implicit desire with the baptism of water ?
4. In either case(3) you consider them explicit and so an exception to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney ?
5. There is no irrational premise being used in Vatican Council II ?
6. You still affirm the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus which does not mention any exceptions ?
7. The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary still hold what the media calls the 'rigorist interpertation' of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus?
8. Implicit desire is a known exception to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church?
9. Your community believes all non Catholics in the present time (2012) need to convert into the Catholic Church to go to Heaven avoid Hell?
10.'All who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church' does not contradict the dogmatic teaching, which says all need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation?
11.Without the visible- dead- saved premise Vatican Council II agrees with Tradition?
12.It is a fact that we cannot see the dead on earth?
13. So if the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 implied that we could see the dead it would be a factual mistake?
14.The Archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Richard Cushing did not affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus, he assumed, that there were known exceptions to the dogma?
15.Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger may not have known that the baptism of desire is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus?
Your answers will help in a clarification of the two reports. Also please give me permission to quote you.
In Christ
Lionel Andrades
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
Posts
12 comments:
Peace, Lionel, but I have to take issue with what you're doing. I'm a friend of the Slaves in Massachusetts and New Hampshire, and am very familiar with their positions and the teachings of Fr. Feeney. I do not claim to speak for the Slaves.
You present a modification of the Dogma of extra ecclesiam that appears to admit exceptions; however, you claim that the exception is not an exception if we Earthlings cannot know it for certain. As you write, "2. If we do not know any of these cases in 2012 can they be considered exceptions to the dogma...?" I can assure you, your modification does not accord with what Fr. Feeney taught, which is that there is no soul in Heaven who did not first enter the Church while on Earth. (Qualification: this means since Pentecost.) You will not find in his writing or in the writing of the Slaves anything that resembles your modification. If you claim otherwise, the burden of proof is on you. Please provide a reference.
After claiming that your modification is consonant with the Slaves (which it is not), you proceed to tie the Slaves to Vatican II by further claiming that your modification is consonant with Vatican II. This is a false syllogism. Then, when Br. Thomas Augustine denies your conclusion, you insist that he answer 15 questions based on your doctrinal modification and your syllogism. This is all self-serving to your construct, and I wouldn't be surprised if you receive no reply from him.
Are you willing to say that, in accordance with the ex cathedra teaching, "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"? This means there is no one, "known or unknown," to borrow your construct, who is in Heaven who didn't die in the Church. If you do not admit that, then you are not in agreement with the Slaves, and you are wrong to pretend that you are. God bless you. -Jerry
Anonymous said...
Peace, Lionel, but I have to take issue with what you're doing. I'm a friend of the Slaves in Massachusetts and New Hampshire, and am very familiar with their positions and the teachings of Fr. Feeney. I do not claim to speak for the Slaves.
Lionel
I also consider myself a friend of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and do not write under an anonymous names. I also do not claim, to speak for them.
Anonymous
You present a modification of the Dogma of extra ecclesiam that appears to admit exceptions;
Lionel:
It will appear so if you do not make the distinction between in principle and in fact, implicit and explicit.
So when I say that there are no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus I mean there are no known exceptions. I use the words known, explicit and defacto. The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary do not use these terms to explain their position.
So when I ask if there are known exeptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, no one answer. Since obviously they are confused.
So you consider it a modification.Inspite of so many posts on this blog which would say otherwise.
Anonymous:
however, you claim that the exception is not an exception
Lionel:Please not you have used the word exception loosely.
Are you speaking about exceptions in principle (known only to God) or exceptions in fact (known to us on earth).
Anonymous
if we Earthlings cannot know it for certain. As you write, "2. If we do not know any of these cases in 2012 can they be considered exceptions to the dogma...?"
Lionel: We cannot know an exception. This is certain.Exceptions are always known to God.This is a fact. We do not know any case.
There is no choice. Even if we wanted to know an exception saved we cannot.
When the Church declares someone a saint we accept it. Otherwise we cannot know who is saved in Heaven with the baptism of desire etc.
So only in principle can the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary admit that there is implicit desire followed by the baptism of water, for someone who is saved with this 'exception'.There is no choice.An exception always refers to something in principle.
Anonymous
I can assure you, your modification does not accord with what Fr. Feeney taught, which is that there is no soul in Heaven who did not first enter the Church while on Earth.
Lionel
I have mentioned numerous times on this blog that the ordinary means of salvation is Catholic Faith and the baptism of water (AG 7).In other words no soul goes to Heaven without first entering the Church while on earth with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.
Anonymous:
(Qualification: this means since Pentecost.) You will not find in his writing or in the writing of the Slaves anything that resembles your modification.
Lionel:
I hold to the 'rigorist interpretation' of extra ecclesiam nulla salus as did Fr.Leonard Feeney and I believes this is the official teaching of the Catholic Church according to magisterial texts including Vatican Council II.
Anonymous
If you claim otherwise, the burden of proof is on you. Please provide a reference.
Lionel:
I do not claim otherwise and the proof is there on this blog.
Anonymous
After claiming that your modification is consonant with the Slaves (which it is not),
Lionel:
You will have to specify what you mean by 'modification'. I have mentioned that the exceptions can only be accepted in principle. This is a fact of life. We cannot see the dead saved in invincible ignorance.So there are no known exceptions.
This is an objective observation and not a personal opinion or theology.
Anonymous
you proceed to tie the Slaves to Vatican II by further claiming that your modification is consonant with Vatican II.
Lionel:
In principle I accept that persons can be saved in invincible ignorance(LG 16), seeds of the word (AG 11)etc.
I know that these cases cannot be known explicitly.
Perhaps for you and some or all of the members of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary these exceptions are explicit and considered known in the present time. So you reject these exceptions.
We cannot see the dead saved with the baptism of desire then we cannot see the dead saved mentioned in Vatican Council II.
The Council does not say that the 'exceptions' are known and so contradict the dogma.
Can you cite any known exception in Vatican Council II to the dogma?
For you the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma because you assume that we know cases of the baptism of desire in the present time? Only if you knew these cases would they be exceptions?
Anonymous:
This is a false syllogism.
Lionel:
False? In what way?
Anonymous:
Then, when Br. Thomas Augustine denies your conclusion,
Lionel:
Br.Thomas Augustine wrote in general and vaguely about not accepting Vatican Council II. So I asked him those questions so that I could make specific changes in that blog report and I would also know exactly what is their final postion on this issue.
The basic question not being answered is :Can the baptism of desire etc be an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus?
Anonymous:
you insist that he answer 15 questions based on your doctrinal modification and your syllogism. This is all self-serving to your construct, and I wouldn't be surprised if you receive no reply from him.
Lionel:The questions are related to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They are also related to the link between the dogma and Vatican Council II.
Anonymous:
Are you willing to say that, in accordance with the ex cathedra teaching, "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"?
Lionel:Yes!
Anonymous:
This means there is no one, "known or unknown," to borrow your construct, who is in Heaven who didn't die in the Church.
Lionel:
There is no one known who didn't die in the Church and who was saved.
Neither of us knows about the 'unknown' cases.
I repeat: in principle, the ordinary means of salvation according to the Catholic Church is Catholic Faith and the baptism of water (AG 7). The Church is the ordinary means of salvation (Redemptoris Missio 55).Salvation is open to all in principle but to receive it one needs to enter the Church.(Dominus Iesus 20) etc.
Anonymous/Jerry
If you do not admit that, then you are not in agreement with the Slaves, and you are wrong to pretend that you are. God bless you. -Jerry
Lionel: Now that I have admitted accepting the dogma in the literal interpretation according to Tradition and Fr.Leonard Feeney could you please tell me if the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary know any one saved with the baptism of desire who is an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney?
Can the baptism of desire/implicit desire with the baptism of water, be an exception to the dogma or even relevant to the dogma?
Lionel,
Let's take a simple declarative statement.
"There exists in Heaven a soul who died outside the Church."
The statement is either true or false. We might not know the answer, but it is either true or false, right?
I am certain that the Slaves and Fr. Feeney would say "false." I certainly say "false."
Dogma is God's revealed truth, and must be true both for Him and for us. If God saves even one soul outside the Church, then He cannot bind us to the dogma, for that would violate truth.
In a subsequent post, you are now saying "For the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary there can be people saved with implicit desire,charity ..." You are falsely characterizing them. Please stop it.
Jerry
Jerry
Let's take a simple declarative statement.
"There exists in Heaven a soul who died outside the Church."
The statement is either true or false.
Lionel:
There exists in Heaven a soul who died outside the Church!
How would you know ?
How would you know either way if there exists or there does not exist ?
This is what I have been saying all this time.
Implicit salvation is always unknown to us.
A possibility is not a reality.
So when Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441 was defined they knew about implicit desire and being saved (implicitly) in invincible ignorance. They had read the Church Fathers.
They knew that implicit desire did not contradict the literal interpretation of Cantate Domino. It did not violate the Principle of Non Contradiction.
So the baptism of desire etc in this sense it irrelevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
If there exists or does not exist in Heaven a soul who died outside the Church has no bearing on the dogmatic teaching in Cantate Domino. It does not contradict the dogma.
Jerry
I am certain that the Slaves and Fr. Feeney would say "false." I certainly say "false."
Lionel
You would say false since you assume that those saved with the baptism of desire etc, without the Sacraments (CCC 1257) would be concrete cases,known to us and since then they would be known exceptions to Cantate Domino, you must reject it.
I understand!
Jerry
Dogma is God's revealed truth, and must be true both for Him and for us.
Lionel:
Yes. For centuries the Church taught the dogma on salvation along with implicit baptism of desire etc and there was no contradiction. The contradiction came in the 1940s with explictly known baptism of desire etc.
Jerry
If God saves even one soul outside the Church, then He cannot bind us to the dogma, for that would violate truth.
Lionel: Theologically I accept that all who are in Heaven are Catholics.
The manner God chooses to save a soul is known only to Him.
For instance someone could die without the baptism of water and God could not condemn him. Instead he could send him or her back to earth to be baptized by the saints. This has been the experience of St.Francis Xavier etc.
Jerry
If God saves even one soul outside the Church, then He cannot bind us to the dogma, for that would violate truth.
Lionel
Even if he did or did not- what bearing does it have on the truth ?
The truth is that every one on earth needs Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation .(AG 7, Cantate Domino, CCC 846 etc).
If God chooses to save one soul outside the Church, God being God, how does it cancel the dogmatic teaching? Since, you would not know of this case,anyway.
Jerry
In a subsequent post, you are now saying "For the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary there can be people saved with implicit desire,charity ..."
Lionel
This was a definition of the baptism of desire on the website of a Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary community.
On the community of Bro. Thomas Augustine MICM there is no clarification that they do not subscribe to this definition.
On their website there is not even an affirmation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Jerry
You are falsely characterizing them. Please stop it.
Lionel:
That definition of the baptism of desire was used by Rasha Lampa, a friend of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary on a pro Fr.Leonard Feeney forum.
You must expect confusion when the community you are supporting is not willing to affirm the Faith on their website.
I still do not know who is the Rector or Superior. Bro.Thomas Augustine has not mentioned it.
Post a Comment