Ryan Grant is not willing to to say on Faithful Answers -and neither EWTN, Catholic Answers, Catholics United for the Faith etc,- that we do not know any exceptions in 2013 to the dogmatic teaching,on all needing to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation? So Fr. Leonard Feeney is a convenient scapegoat.
Writing on extra ecclesiam nulla salus on Faitful Answers he is not willing to go on record as being a supporter of Fr.Leonard Feeney. How can he say that all Jews and Muslims in 2013 need to convert into the Catholic Church is the official teaching of the Catholic Church ? So even though he does not know any exception he will claim that the baptism of desire is an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
He can only do this if he uses the unofficial teaching of the Catholic Church, the popular interpretation, on salvation and extra ecclesiam nulla salus,which assumes we can see the dead saved in invincible ignorance etc for them to be exceptions.
Since he cannot in public hold the 'rigorist interpretation' of Tradition on this issue, he will claim that being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are known-to-all-of-us exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma.
In the first installment in a series of reports on extra ecclesiam nulla salus, he has already told us that the Church Councils did not know about this great discovery of the 1940s, of the baptism of desire being relevant to the dogma which they defined, three times and did not mention.
He also explains the dogma with reference to the times it was issued and restricts it to that time, as if he would do the same with the dogma on the Trinity or Mary the Mother of God.
Ryan Grant writes:
At length, what about Protestants? Do we believe that all Protestants are going to hell? This is a difficult question, but the common teaching of theologians on this subject is that they do not necessarily go to hell. Here what we relate is to be distinguished from the question of the salvation of non-Christians, which will be taken up in the section on Baptism of desire.
So after having written that the Church is necessary for salvation and all need to be visible members of the Church he is now ready to claim there are known exceptions in 2013. So he will contradict himself.
Are all Protestants going to Hell ? Yes according to the Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441, Pope Eugene IV ex cathedra.
Yes according to Vatican Council II, Ad Gentes 7. All need faith and baptism for salvation. Protestants do not have Catholic Faith, which includes the faith and moral teachings of the Church, to avoid mortal sin, and the necessity of the Sacraments.
Yes according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846 which says all need to enter the Church 'as through a door' and cites AG 7.
Yes according to Dominus Iesus 20 which mentions that Jesus died for all but to receive this salvation all need to enter the Church, the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation.
Yes according to Redemptoris Missio 55 which says it must be remembered in inter-religious dialogue that the Church is the only means of salvation and in N.10 the same message is repeated.
Ryan Grant cannot say Protestants need to convert for salvation (to avoid Hell) since he assumes that the baptism of desire is known to us in the present times and so is an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr. Leonard Feeney.
Redemptoris Missio states:
1.Salvation is granted to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church.
2.Salvation is also granted to those who do not explictly believe in Christ and have entered the Church (and who are unknown to us. They are hypothetical cases. For us they can only possibilities.)
N.1 is not contradicted by N.2 . Since N.1 is the ordinary means of salvation ( the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, John 3:5 etc) and N.2 refer to cases known only to God. Since they are not known to us in the present times, they are not exceptions to the dogma.
For Ryan Grant N.2 would contradict N.1 since he assumes that these cases are known to us in the present times. So for him the baptism of desire is an exception. The baptism of desire was not an exception for Fr.Leonard Feeney and Catholic tradition. We cannot say that there were 12 baptism of desire cases this year or that there even was one over the last 100 years.
However if Ryan Grant admits that N.2 is not known to us he would have to say that Fr.Leonard Feeney was correct.Is he willing to say this?
The apologists at EWTN, University of Steubenville where Ryan Grant has studied, and Phillip Gray whom he has quoted by him, are not willing to say this.
It's convenient to say that the Holy Office 1949 made a factual error and that Pope Pius XII assumed that the baptism of desire is known to us in the present times and is an exception to the dogma.
The Letter of the Holy Office does not state this!
-Lionel Andradeshttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/08/faithful-answers-has-not-touched-any-of.html#links
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment