Saturday, July 5, 2014

Why did the Holy Office 1949 mention the baptism of desire as an exception to the dogma? This is a factual mistake.

Consider this statement from the Holy Office Letter (it pays to consider the entire letter):
"From what has been said it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical , fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without."
Lionel:
This passage is vague.Also other passages are written in a confusing way.
Generally in the media and among Catholic liberal theologians it is interpreted to mean that the baptism of desire is explicit or us and is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So Fr.Leonard Feeney was criticized for not accepting the baptism of desire as an exception.
Reason tells us that the baptism of desire is always explicit only for God and implicit ( invisible) for us. So how can implicit baptism of desire be an explicit ( defacto) exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?

 Here's the article, Lionel:

Lionel:
It is an excellent article. It affirms the traditional understanding of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
And, take note of footnote #7:7 As has been shown in other writings from St. Benedict Center, all allusions by the popes, the councils and learned doctors of the Church to this subject matter agree, that only an explicit desire for the actual Sacrament of Baptism can affect justification.
Lionel:
Yes -and this explicit desire for the actual Sacrament of Baptism is that of a catechumen who is not known to us. He is not visible to us. De facto we do not know any such case. This is a hypothetical case.
Br. Francis Maluf, M.I.C.M.
Is the Holy Office implying that a hypothetical case is a known (physically present) exception to the interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Brother Francis Maluf MICM and Fr.Leonard Feeney ? This would be irrational.
What is disputed is whether such desire is sufficient for salvation. We hold with many of the saints the same literal meaning of Our Lord’s words: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be condemned.” (Mk. XVI:15)
Lionel:
The baptism of desire per se is not an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The Holy Office does not say that the baptism of desire is irrelevant to the dogma.Why did they mention the baptism of desire as an exception to the dogma? It was assumed that these cases are visible and so are defacto exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This was the error.
This is a break with Tradition. No other Church document implies that the baptism of desire is visible to us or is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is a factual mistake. It is a break with the defined dogma, the Catechism of Pope Pius X. It is heresy. It contradicts Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II ( all need faith and baptism for salvation). It contradicts the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846 ( all need to enter the Church as through a door.)
This, of course, is contrary to the teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas and all of his peers; hence, it is contrary to the teaching of the Council of Basel and the Council of Florence which was a continuation of it.
Lionel:
St.Thomas Aquinas affirmed the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So did St. Augustine and the saints.The St.Benedict Center was following St.Thomas Aquinas.
Has the Council of Basil said any where that there are explicit exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? No!
-Lionel Andrades

Only at the physical level can there be exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Hypothetical, theoretical cases cannot be defacto exceptions

Lionel:
You tell me. Why do you think the baptism of desire is not an exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation with no exceptions?

The Baltimore Catechism answers this:
Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?
A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.
Lionel:
The Baltimore Catechism here says nothing about the baptism of desire being visible or invisible physically for us. Neither does it state here that it is an explicit exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
All salvation is invisible, Lionel. But, to moral certitude, we can observe Baptism of Desire, say, in a catechumen (that is, one who has not been sacramentally baptized) who is martyred in the Name of Jesus Christ.
Lionel:
If you knew a catechumen who has died before receiving the baptism of water which he sought, you can hope that he has been saved and have a 'moral certitude'.So how is this case a physical exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
Theoretically O.K. But practically how is it relevant ?
Why is this such a difficult concept for you, Lionel?
Lionel:
It is not difficult for me. I can see that you are mixing up the theoretical and practical aspect of Baptism of Desire.
 
The quote from the Baltimore Catechism reflects theory or theology.It is about faith and beliefs. It does not refer to the physical defacto state, in which only there can be exceptions, to extra ecclesiam nulla salus - and there are none.Since salvation in Heaven is not visible to us.
Only at the physical level can there be exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Hypothetical, theoretical cases cannot be defacto exceptions.
-Lionel Andrades

SSPX infers invincible ignorance (LG16) is visible for us, a defacto exception to all needing water-baptism so they condemn Vatican Council II

If you want to find a historical reason that brought a crisis on the Catholic Church you don't need to go far. Its called Vatican II with that 'smoke of Satan'.
Lionel:
Yes you mean Vatican Council II with the false premise. Without the irrational premise Vatican  Council is traditional.The premise assumes we can see the dead saved with the baptism of desire. Then it is presumed that these visible-deceased are exceptions to all needing to enter the Church with the baptism of water.
Do not put me against the SSPX. I am  just a Catholic who wants to  Tradition. On some things I dont agree with them.But I cannot  accept tit when you say Vatican II is traditional. Since it affims principles condemned by the Church.

Lionel:
Vatican Council II ( with the dead-saved and visible who are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus) is not traditional.
You dont need to call me either a “traditionalist”. To me who really wants to  be a Catholic defends Tradition.As far as I know, you are claiming to be a Catholic, but at the same time  a Feeneyist.You cannot be two things. Feeneyism condemned, like it or not.
Lionel:
The problem of the interpretation of Vatican Council II with the false premise comes from the Letter of the Holy Office.
For example:
Invisible baptism of desire was considered visible.Then it was considered an exception by the Holy Office1949.
Invisible being saved in invincible ignorance was consided visible by the Holy Office. Then it was considered an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.See the text.
Today the SSPX considers invincible ignorance (Lumen Gentium 16) as not invisible but visible for us. This is an exception for them to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So they condemn Vatican Council II.
Lumen gentium 16 however does not refer to being saved with visible invincible ignorance.LG 16 does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The SSPX makes the error since they accepted the error of the Holy Office 1949.They are using the reasoning of the Holy Office 1949.This irrational reasoning was used by the Holy Office (CDF) in its criticism of Fr.Leonard Feeney and the traditional interpretation of the dogma according to him.
-Lionel Andrades

Where is the Church document before 1949 which says that the baptism of desire is known to us, it is explicit

You really put terms that are not shown in the Holy Office Letter of 1949. You are misunderstanding the sense.
 

Lionel:
If you consider Feeneyism a heresy because the Holy Office 1949 condemned it then you are saying that Fr.Leonard Feeney was wrong not to consider the baptism of desire an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is the common charge in the media.So you are saying the baptism of desire is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

1.Then the question now arises- is the baptism of desire visible for us ?. Do we know any case of someone saved with the baptism of desire?. Do you personally know any such person in Italy.? Do any of your friends know someone now in Heaven saved as such? No you do not know.There is no such case.

2.Then the question arises where is the Church document before 1949 which says that the baptism of desire is known to us, it is explicit. Which document says that it is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? None!

So for the first time in 1949 the Holy Office assumed that invisible for us baptism of desire was visible to us.It was denying the dogma with alleged 'exceptions' which are not known to us and which no Church document mention. The Holy Office was not only heretical but irrational.

Feeneyism was the official,approved  teaching of the Catholic Church before 1949.The Church Councils which defined the dogma three times, never mentioned  any exceptions.
-Lionel Andrades

There can be an implicit ( invisible) for us baptism of desire and an explicit ( visible) baptism of desire in this discussion on the Holy Office 1949

No one is claiming that salvation, with or without sacramental Baptism, is "visible." I know that you think that people (the 1949 Holy Office Letter, the SSPX, etc.) are implying that, but believe me, they deny any such implication. If you don't believe me, then ask them!
 Lionel:
You've left the old line of thought we were discussing.
Are you aware that there can be an implicit ( invisible) for us baptism of desire and an explicit ( visible) baptism of desire in this discussion on the Holy Office 1949.
So we can discuss the baptism of desire as being hypothetical or defacto ( known or seen in real life).
The baptism of desire is implicit ( invisible) for us. It is a hypothetical subject.You have cited it here:
The Baltimore Catechism answers this:
Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?
 
The baptism of desire is ALWAYS a hypothetical subject.It is ALWAYS invisible for us.
For the baptism of desire to be an exception to all needing to enter the Church with the baptism of water in 2014 it would have to be explicit us for us.There would have to be a case visible.Then this would be a visible exception.
A hypothetical case cannot be a defacto ( known, visible) exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Yet the Holy Office, the SSPX websites and pro SSPX forums criticize Fr.Leonard Feeney and cite the baptism of desire, as if it was relevent to the priest's understanding of the dogma on exclusive salvation.
Why? Since they believe there is salvation outside the Church, and that a person can be saved with ( defacto) baptism of desire ( which is not hypothetical).
You have cited a hypothetical case from the Council of Basil and then inferred it is visible for us and then you have concluded that it is an exception to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
-Lionel Andrades

Lombardi says Franciscans of the Immaculate a 'delicate subject' : ignores Vatican's doctrinal ambiguities

 
 
Fr.Frederico Lombardi S.J, the Director of the Vatican's Press Office has issued a general statement in his private capacity, to the many people who have written to him, concerned about the community the Franciscans of the Immaculate.He writes that this is a delicate subject and he ignores two basic doctrinal points related to the Franciscan Sisters and Friars of the Immaculate (FI).The two points are :-
1.
The Holy Office 1949 in the Letter to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr.Leonard Feeney has wrongly assumed that implicit ( invisible) baptism of desire was explicit(visible) for us.Then it was assumed that these 'visible' cases were defacto (in real life) exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus .They were exceptions to the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.For the Holy Office all do not need the baptism of water for salvation( defacto) since there were defacto cases known of the baptism of desire.It was concluded that there was salvation outside the church as if one could name an exception in the present times.
The Holy Office mixed up invisible-visible, hypothetical-in reality distinctions.Hypothetical subjects cannot be de facto exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.
The Franciscans of the Immaculate have to accept this irrational reasoning . Then they have to extend it to Vatican Council II.
2.
Nostra Aetate 2 , 'a ray of the Truth' is always implicit (invisible) for us.The Vatican Curia however assumes that it is visible for us ( defacto).Then they conclude that these cases of the deceased, saved with the baptism of desire, and now visible, are explicit ( defacto) exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Tradition.
The Franciscans of the Immaculate have to use this reasoning in the interpretation of Vatican Counncil II (NA 2,LG 16,LG 8,UR 3,AG 11 etc)
There was no comment from Fr.Frederico Lombardi regarding these two points mentioned in the e-mail many people sent him.-L.A


Read more here:

July 4, 2014
Fr.Frederico Lombardi does not address doctrinal questions on Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/07/frfrederico-lombardi-does-not-address.html#links