Ryan Grant one of the apologists on Faithful Answers has not dealt with any of the issues I have been writing about. Over the years I have also informed him about it.
He was asked to write an article on outside the Church there is no salvation and to respond to the issues I had raised.
Instead he has picked up material from the Catholics United for the Faith website and other sources on the internet.
So the fundamental questions are still not answered by any apologist on Faithful Answers.
1) Do we know any case in the present times saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance?
2) So can the baptism of desire be relevant or an exception to the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus?
3) Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation.So the reference is to Catholic Faith and the baptism of water. The reference could not be to Protestant faith and the baptism of desire.
Ad Gentes 7 is in agreement with the literal interpretation of the dogma.
2) So can the baptism of desire be relevant or an exception to the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus?
3) Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation.So the reference is to Catholic Faith and the baptism of water. The reference could not be to Protestant faith and the baptism of desire.
Ad Gentes 7 is in agreement with the literal interpretation of the dogma.
Philip Gray, who is cited, assumes that the baptism of desire is a known exception to the dogma on salvation.
Once in correspondence with Ryan Grant he mentioned that the Catholic Church teaches that there is a baptism of desire and that it is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. I accept the baptism of desire in principle however I do not consider it an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
I asked him to cite some text as an example.He could not.Since no magisterial document mentions that the baptism of desire is known to us in particular cases or that it is an exception to the dogma.It simply mentions the baptism of desire since this was an issue raised by the Americanist movement , against the dogma.
Similarly the Letter of the Holy Office mentions that Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for disobedience and not heresy.The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 refers to the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance since it was an issue raised by the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits. It does not state that these cases are exceptions to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
If it did make this claim as is widely reported, then the cardinal who wrote the Letter of the Holy Ofice made an objective mistake. We cannot see the dead. We cannot see the dead saved in invincible ignorance etc for these case to be exceptions to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
Neither does the text of the three Councils which defined extra ecclesiam nulla salus mention the baptism of desire etc.Since it is not relevant to the dogma.This was the error of Cardinal Richard Cushing who assumed that the baptism of desire was visible to us in personal cases and so was an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
The Catholic Church did not ask Fr.Leonard Feeney to recant when the excommunication for disobedience was lifted.
In the next tract, Ryan Grant writes, he will take up the necessity of the baptism of desire.
He cannot name any case in 2013 saved with the baptism of desire. So how can it be an issue or related to Pope Boniface VIII's Unam Santam or Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441 of Pope Eugene IV.
Cantate Domino specifically mentions that Protestants and Orthodox Christians are oriented to the fires of Hell unless they convert into the Catholic Church. Ryan Grant says he is not sure of the position of Protestants.
-Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment