Tuesday, November 13, 2012

The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary are not answering the question: Do we know any one on earth saved with the baptism of desire?

Implicitly how can the baptism of desire be an exception to the dogma on salvation?


A supporter of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary says that they completely reject the baptism of desire since if they accepted it in principle, even in a single case, it would contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It seems for him the baptism of desire is always explicit and he never makes the distinction between implicit and explicit baptism of desire.

He writes:
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." (1)

The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary mean that a person cannot go to Heaven without the baptism of water-just the baptism of desire is no enough.They mean that a person can go to Heaven with implicit baptism of desire followed by the baptism of water and this would not contradict the Catholic teaching that every one needs the baptism of water for salvation.

But what if someone makes a declarative statement.


"There exists an implicit desire known only to God"


The statement is either true or false. We might not know the answer, but it is either true or false, right?


I say it is true since the Council of Trent and so many magisterial sources mention implicit desire. If it results in justification or justification and salvation, it is still only known to God. So it is irrelevant to the literal interpretation of Fr. Leonard Feeney.


Even if there exists a soul who died outside the church and it would be known to God only, it does not contradict the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which says all alive on earth need to convert into the Church,  since we would not know who this case is and so it is not an exception to the dogma.

So implicit baptism of desire is compatible with Fr.Leonard Feeney's position.


The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary are not answering the question: Do we know any one on earth saved with the baptism of desire?


Implicitly how can the baptism of desire be an exception to the dogma on salvation?


So when Jeffrey Mirus of Catholic Culture criticizes Fr.Leonard Feeney for rejecting the baptism of desire does it make sense? Why do the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary not tell him that implicit baptism of desire is not an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma?


Can the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Still River, Mass accept implicit baptism of desire along with the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus?-Lionel Andrades

1
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/brother-thomas-augustine-micm.html

No comments: