Fr.Dan Merz, Associate Director, Secretariate of Divine Worship,USCCB has responded to these blog posts on the video reflection by Jem Sullivan Ph.d.
The blog posts mentioned that the USCCB denied the Catholic Faith since it has presented Jesus without the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation.The video reflection was criticized also for what it did not say.
Jem Sullivan implied that the USCCB has denied the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which says all need to enter the Church formally for salvation.It also denied the same message which is there in Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II (all need faith and baptism for salvation).
Further Eucharist and Mission said that Jem Sullivan was denying the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, and so was the USCCB, since they consider the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance as being visible to us, seen in the flesh in 2014. So these 'visible cases' are assumed to be exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.They would have to be visible to Sullivan and USCCB officials for them to be exceptions. Hence Sullivan omitted saying that every one with no exception needs to enter the Catholic Church to avoid Hell. The dogma was the traditional basis for Catholic Mission.
The common error is confirmed in Fr.Dan Merz's letter reproduced below. He infers that those saved in invincible ignorance are explicit exceptions to all defacto needing the baptism of water in 2014 for salvation .All means no exceptions.
The common error is confirmed in Fr.Dan Merz's letter reproduced below. He infers that those saved in invincible ignorance are explicit exceptions to all defacto needing the baptism of water in 2014 for salvation .All means no exceptions.
The USCCB made the same mistake in the Fr.Peter C. Phan case.The USCCB Notification stated that the baptism of desire etc were EXCEPTIONS to all needing to convert into the Church. A hypothetical case for us ( baptism of desire) was assumed to be defacto and known in the present times for it to be an exception.
The USCCB was also not aware of the mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.It was s assumed by the Holy Office in 1949 that the baptism of desire was explicit for us instead of implicit. So it was considered an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma by Fr.Leonard Feeney.The cardinal who issued the Letter assumed that invisible for us salvation in Heaven,with the baptism of desire, was visible to us on earth for it to be relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It is a fact of life that we cannot see the dead-saved.
Fr.Dan Merz defending the USCCB policy states :
'..the Church certainly holds to Baptism as the ordinary means for salvation, but she also is clear that God is not bound to those means. The Catechism of the Catholic Church makes this very clear in no. 1260:
Lionel: The Church holds to the baptism of water as the ordinary means of salvation. The baptism of desire is a possibility known only to God and it is not the ordinary means of salvation.Neither is a possibility a known reality in the present times.
Those who are theoretically saved without the baptism of water ( if it is possible) are not defacto known cases for them to be exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
1260 “Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.” Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.
Those who are theoretically saved without the baptism of water ( if it is possible) are not defacto known cases for them to be exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
1260 “Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.” Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.
Lionel: Yes he can be saved if he is in invincible ignorance.However CCC 1260 does not state that these cases are visible, explicit for us, seen in the flesh, objectively noted.
Reason tells us that these cases are invisible for us and visible only for God.
So how can a hypothetical case, a possibility known only to God, be a defacto exception in 2014 to all needing Sacramental Baptism for salvation?.
How can the baptism of desire even be relevant for all needing to convert into the Church through the ordinary means of salvation ( the baptism of water)?
Fr.Dan Merz like the USCCB officials and Jem Sullivan are mixing up implicit-explicit, invisible-visible, dejure( in principle)-defacto( in reality).Since they assume that implicit cases are explicit they do not affirm the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church and the necessity for all (defacto) to be formal members with 'faith and baptism'(AG 7).
CCC 1260 does not mention any exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus unless it is inferred that what is implicit and invisible for us is explicit and visible.A theoretical case is made a defacto exception.
Here is the letter from Fr.Dan Merz .He makes the same error as Jem Sullivan and also that of the USCCB Notification on Fr.Peter C.Phan.
Dear Mr. Andrades,
The blog post seems to refer to the video reflection by Jem Sullivan, Ph.D. for July 11, 2014, in which she speaks about the Church's call to evangelization. The blog condemns the reflection without citing any of her words, and when I listened to her words, I could find nothing blameworthy.
Secondly, the Church certainly holds to Baptism as the ordinary means for salvation, but she also is clear that God is not bound to those means. The Catechism of the Catholic Church makes this very clear in no. 1260:
1260 “Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.” Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.
I hope this helps.
Peace and All Good,
Fr. Merz
Fr. Dan Merz
Associate Director
Secretariat of Divine Worship
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
3211 4th St. NE
Washington, DC 20017
voice: (202) 541-3060
fax: (202) 541-3088
The blog post seems to refer to the video reflection by Jem Sullivan, Ph.D. for July 11, 2014, in which she speaks about the Church's call to evangelization. The blog condemns the reflection without citing any of her words, and when I listened to her words, I could find nothing blameworthy.
Secondly, the Church certainly holds to Baptism as the ordinary means for salvation, but she also is clear that God is not bound to those means. The Catechism of the Catholic Church makes this very clear in no. 1260:
1260 “Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.” Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.
I hope this helps.
Peace and All Good,
Fr. Merz
Fr. Dan Merz
Associate Director
Secretariat of Divine Worship
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
3211 4th St. NE
Washington, DC 20017
voice: (202) 541-3060
fax: (202) 541-3088
_________________________________________
http://www.usccb.org/about/divine-worship/
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment