Pope Paul VI was not aware of the magisterial heresy.He permitted it in Vatican Council II. There should have been no mention of baptism of desire(BOD) or invincible ignorance in Vatican Council II. Since they are not explicit and so are not relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
The concept of salvation in Heaven being explicit on earth was accepted by Pope Paul VI and Pope John XXIII.
We may speculate that someone in Heaven is there without the baptism of water but for this case to be an exception to the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS it would have to be explicit, objectively seen in 1960-1965.
Secondly how can we speculate that there are people in Heaven without the baptism of water when the dogma EENS says all need the baptism of water in the Catholic Church for salvation.Vatican Council II repeats the same teaching in Ad Gentes 7, Lumen Gentium 14 .
At the time of Vatican Council 2 (1960-1965) Pope Paul VI had still not lifted the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney.
In an interview Fr. Leonard Feeney said that there was no known salvation outside the Church and the Jesuit Rector and Provincial were teaching that there was salvation outside the Church and they were wrong.
It is a fact of life that we humans cannot know of cases in Heaven saved with the baptism of water.
The saints including St. Francis Xaview have witnessed persons returning from the dead only to be baptised with water. God did not send them to Hell but gave them a second chance.
St. Thomas Aquinas said that God would send a preacher to the man in the forest in invincible ignorance who was to be saved.
No one in the Church can say that St. Emerentiana or another sent is in Heaven without the baptism of water.
Yet there was confusion in the Church when the Baltimore Catechism(1808) speculated that the baptism of blood and desire were similar to the baptism of water.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1995) does not refer to the dogma any more but to an 'aphorism'.
There was no link between BOD, BOB and the baptism of water being necessary for salvation.The Baltimore Catechism made the link and then so did the Catechism of Pius X.
It is heresy (and irrationality) to suggest that BOD, BOB and I.I refer to explicit cases and so they are exceptions to EENS.
This is the heresy of Cushingism. I avoid the Cushing Heresy in the interpretation of Vatican Councl II.
I affirm Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 in accord with the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS and I accept BOD, BOB and I.I as referring to invisible for us cases, which would be followed, in a manner known to God, with the baptism of water.(AG 7, LG 14)
So I do not reject BOD, BOB and I.I . I simply do not interpret it according to Cushingism but according to Fr. Leonard Feeney and Tradition.
The Cushing Heresy, which is not magisterial in 2015, emerged when the Archbishop of Boston, Richard Cushing suppressed Fr.Leonard Feeney for political reasons.
The late Senator Edward Kennedy in his memoirs wrote that he was present when his brother Robert phoned Archbishop Cushing and asked him to put a stop to Fr. Leonard Feeney's preching and teaching.
So he changed the original interpretation of the dogma with an irrationality. The irrationality was that BOD, BOB and I.I were explicit and so were relevant and exceptions to EENS. He then placed the references to BOD and I.I in Vatican Council II and Pope Pius VI overlooked it.
So he changed the original interpretation of the dogma with an irrationality. The irrationality was that BOD, BOB and I.I were explicit and so were relevant and exceptions to EENS. He then placed the references to BOD and I.I in Vatican Council II and Pope Pius VI overlooked it.
-Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment