Harmonize the medieval magisteria​l statements with the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office

There are so many good Catholics trying to 'harmonize the medieval magisterial statements on extra ecclesiam nulla salus with the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office ' (1) while making the Richard Cushing mistake of assuming that de jure (in principle) teachings are known de facto ( in reality in the present times). This results in a theology which suggests we can see the dead now in Heaven, who are exceptions to the medieval magisterial statements on extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Of course, they are doomed to failure with this irrational exercise.

 

Yes, the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 can be reconciled with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus if the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are considered implicit and unknown to us in the present times. It is then not an exception to the dogma.

 

Fr.Brian Harrison writes  'Now, Fr. Feeney and his SBC followers(St.Benedict Center) would probably say that I am trying to ‘square the circle’ here, so that my efforts to harmonize the medieval magisterial statements with the 1949 Letter are inevitably doomed to failure.'

 

No it would not inevitably be doomed to failure, as long as Fr.Harrison would  specify that the baptism of desire etc are never explicit for us and so are irrelevant to the medieval magisterial texts.It is definitely not an exception, known  or unknown, as the medieval popes, Doctors of the Church and saints knew.So Thomas Aquinas would affirm the literal interpretation of the dogma and also accept that there could be 'a man in the forest' saved in invincible ignorance.The 'man in the forest' is not an exception to the medieval magisterial statements on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

 

The liberals say Jesus said those who are not against us are for us.Fine, but we do not know who these persons are in the present times to judge them as being exceptions to all needing to convert into the Church for salvation.

 

Then it is said that the good thief at the Crucifixion went to Heaven without the baptism of water. Fine, so even if there is a case in 2013 who is going to Heaven without the baptism of water it would not be known to us. So how could it be an exception to all needing faith and baptism for salvation with no exceptions. 

 

Similarly Robert Sungenis believes he can harmonize the medieval magisterial statements on extra ecclesiam nulla salus  with the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office .He affirms the dogma in a vague way or  even with the literal interpretation of the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney along with visible to us cases of the baptism of desire etc which are known or unknown exceptions to the  medieval magisterial statements.This would be contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction unless he clarifies that those saved in invincible ignorance etc are known only to God and so are not exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma.

Similarly the SSPX  priests state that they affirm the medieval magisterial statements along with the baptism of desire etc which are exceptions. They say every one needs to enter the Church except for those persons saved with the baptism of desire and saved in invincible ignorance. This is a familiar line.

 

What the SSPX priests need to say is that every one needs to enter the Catholic Church in the present times (2013) and there are no known exceptions, the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are not exceptions since we do not know any such case in 2013 and no magisterial text states that we can know these cases. -Lionel Andrades

 

 1.

http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt150.html

 

Now, Fr. Feeney and his SBC followers would probably say that I am trying to ‘square the circle’ here, so that my efforts to harmonize the medieval magisterial statements with the 1949 Letter are inevitably doomed to failure. Specifically, they would most likely claim that I am hoist on my own petard in trying to defend the sufficiency for salvation of an “implicit desire for the Church” in the hearts of non-Catholic Christians – persons who by definition explicitly refuse submission to the Roman Pontiff. For I have already admitted that we can never, on pain of Vatican I’s anathema, give a new and different meaning to the words of any Catholic dogma. But (my SBC critics are likely to argue) the words “heretics” and “schismatics” in the Florentine profession of faith were certainly understood by the 15th-century Fathers of that Council to include all separated Eastern Christians as well as the pre-Reformation ‘Protestants’ of their day (Hussites, Waldensians, Lollards, and other sectarians). There was no benign ecumenical talk back then of such folks being our “separated brethren”! Therefore (my critics will conclude) the Council of Florence, in consigning to the eternal fire all those dying as “heretics” and “schismatics”, included among these sons of perdition all persons who die professing membership in any non-Catholic community whatsoever, that is, all who die with an explicit will not to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. If this conclusion is correct, the very idea that a non-Catholic’s “implicit desire” for the Church could be sufficient for his or her salvation is heretical. And that is precisely the grave charge leveled boldly by Leonard Feeney at the 1949 Holy Office Letter- Fr.Brian Harrison

 ^{http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt150.html}