Thursday, July 9, 2015

The Council of Trent does not mention the baptism of desire and the baptism of blood as being explicit or as being explicit exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Fr.Anthony Cekada says on the website  http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=28&catname=2
 Trent, Definitions, “Official” Pronouncements. Baptism of desire and baptism of blood are defined in essentially the same way in the works I cited.
Lionel:
The Council of Trent does not mention BOD (baptism of desire)  and BOB (baptism of blood) as being explicit or as being explicit exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
A. Desire. St. Alphonsus Liguori defines baptism of desire (flaminis) as: “Perfect conversion to God through contrition or love of God above all things, with the explicit or implicit desire [voto] for true Baptism of water, in whose place it may supply, according to the Council of Trent.” He cites Session 14, on Penance, ch. 4.
      St. Alphonsus further states: “It is de fide that men may be also be saved through baptism of desire — from the chapter Apostolicamde presb. non bapt. and from the Council of Trent, where it is said that no one can be saved ‘without the washing of regeneration or the desire for it’.” (Theologia Moralis, ed. nova. [Rome: Vatican 1909] 3:96-7.)
Lionel:
St.Alphonsus Liguori has elsewhere affirmed the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The baptism of water is the ordinary means of salvation.
If someone is saved hypothetically without the baptism of water, personally he would not know of any such case.No one could have known of any exception.
So he is only mentioning a hypothetical case. He is not saying that his hypothetical case is defacto known and so is an exception to traditional EENS.
He does not make this inference. He mentions two separate things BOD and EENS.It is Fr.Anthony Cekada  who makes the connection.
_____________________
      The first citation is to an Epistle of Pope Innocent II (1130–43), who stated that a priest who “had died without the water of baptism, because he had persevered in the faith of Holy Mother the Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland.” (Dz 388)[2]
Lionel:
Hypothetical. Since this pope does not say he went to Heaven or met this person who died.He did not verify that this person is in Heaven without the baptism of water.
_______________________
      Other theologians also cite Trent and Innocent II for these definitions.      They also cite Pope Innocent III’s decree in 1206 concerning a Jew who desired baptism but was not able to be validly baptized: “If, however, such a man had died immediately, he would have flown to his heavenly home at once, because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith.” (Dz 413)[3]
Lionel:
'If'...another statement made with goodwill. Personally there was no known case in particular.Since it would not be possible to verify it.
      Some add Pope St. Pius V’s condemnation of the following proposition of Baius: “Perfect and sincere charity… can exist both in catechumens and in penitents without the remission of sins.” This is cited because: “The contradictory of this proposition is true. Therefore, charity cannot exist in unbaptized catechumens without the remission of their sins.” (McAuliffe, Sacramental Theology, 84.)
Lionel:
Again he is referring to a hypothetical case and something which has meaning for him. It is not a known exception, it is not an objective case. So it is not related to the dogma.A hypothetical case cannot be a defacto exception in the present times, for us human beings.
B. Blood. St. Alphonsus defines baptism of blood as: “The shedding of blood, or death tolerated, for the faith or for another Christian virtue.” As sources, he cites, among others, St. Thomas, St. Robert Bellarmine, Suarez and Cajetan. (ibid.)
      As Solà noted (see above), opposition to this doctrine was virtually non-existent. The Magisterium does not usually intervene to issue a solemn definition for a common teaching unless it is widely attacked by heretics.
Lionel:
He is referring to the baptism of blood ( martyrdon) which is acceptable and understood. However Fr. Cekada infers that this case is known, explicit, objective and so is relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, as an exception, when the text does not mention it.  -Lionel Andrades

Fr.Anthony Cekada has used an irrational premise ( BOD is explicit, objective in the present times ) and an irrational inference ( BOD is explicit and so an exception to EENS).

http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=28&catname=2
FIRST ASK: WHAT ARE THE CRITERIA FOR OUR BELIEF
Dear N.N.:
Thank you for your e-mail.
      Unfortunately, by going directly to a series of questions about the particular issue of baptism of desire, you pass over the key to this discussion: Ascertaining all the general criteria by which a particular issue such as this must be judged.
      My original article, “Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles,” began by setting forth the “general rules for belief” that the Church imposes upon Catholics. What kinds of teaching are we obliged to adhere to?
      Answering this question establishes the general principles, or the rules of evidence, for discussing any point of Catholic teaching. Only when all these principles are established can one then look at aparticular issue.
      Vatican I and Pius IX laid down these general principles by establishing all the following as the types of teaching that a Catholic must believe and adhere to:
1.  Solemn pronouncements of the extraordinary Magisterium.
2.     Teachings of the universal ordinary Magisterium.
3.     Teachings of the universal ordinary Magisterium held by the universal and common consent of theologians to belong to the faith.
4.  Doctrinal decisions of the Vatican congregations.
5.     Theological truths and conclusions so certain that opposition to them merits some theological censure short of “heresy.”
      Fr. Feeney’s followers (and many traditionalists) seem to have the impression that a Catholic’s obligation is pretty much limited to point 1 on the list. Your letter stops after point 2 and then asks a series of questions.
      But a Catholic has to accept all these criteria, and consequently also believe or adhere to all the teachings which fall under points 2-5.
      Otherwise, a reasonable discussion of almost any theological point among Catholics becomes entirely impossible, because some of the Church’s standards have been set aside.
      So, I ask you to reread Section I of my original article, with particular attention to the quotes from Tuas Libenter and the Syllabus of Errors, in order to verify that points 2-5 above do in fact accurately represent the obligations that Pius IX laid down.
Lionel:
None of the First Principles before 1949 stated tht BOD and BOB  were 1) explicit 2) they were explicit and so were exceptions to EENS 3) they are explicit for us in the present times.
So we do not have a First Principle before 1949 condeming Fr. Leonard Feeney. Instead they support Fr.Leonard Feeney and negate Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani and Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits in Boston.
      I think that if you carefully study the issue, you will come to understand and accept the Church’s requirements as regards points 2-5.
      Acknowledging these as first principles would go a long way towards resolving any difficulties over the specific issue of baptism of desire and baptism of blood.
Lionel:
My reading of the First Principles show Cardinals Marchetti and Cushing and now Fr.Anthonty Cekada in error. They have used an irrational premise ( BOD is explicit, objective in the present times ) and an irrational inference ( BOD is explicit and so an exception to EENS in the present times). This is not part of the Deposit of the Faith. It is something new which has come into the Church. It  is 'a development' of both BOD and EENS.
      Please take your time in replying. I’ll be away for about two weeks (seminary teaching and missions) and I won’t have access to e-mail.
Yours in Christ,
— The Rev. Anthony Cekada
 http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=28&catname=2


The Holy Office 1949 made a factual mistake. It was an objective mistake and not just a mistake in theology. It was an error of observation. In a sense it was a philosophical error
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/07/the-holy-office-1949-made-factual.html



The Holy Office 1949 made a factual mistake. It was an objective mistake and not just a mistake in theology. It was an error of observation. In a sense it was a philosophical error.

From Salvation and the ChurchFeeney, Fenton and the Making of
Lumen Gentium by Geertjan Zuijdwegt
http://www.academia.edu/8885903/Salvation_and_the_Church_Feeney_Fenton_and_the_Making_of_Lumen_Gentium
 
Abstract. —
This article traces the development of the Roman Catholic understand-ing of extra ecclesiam nulla salus between the Boston Heresy Case in the early 1940s and the Second Vatican Council. The Holy Office’s condemnation of the virtual limitation of salvation to Roman Catholics by Leonard Feeney and his followers is commonly construed as an important step in the development of an inclusivist under-standing of ecclesial belonging. The present article, by contrast, argues that a com-mon Bellarminian theological framework underlies the respective positions of Feeney, the Holy Office, and Joseph Clifford Fenton, the major American expounder of the Holy Office’s position. The real development of the Church’s official position was initiated and partly accomplished in the debates in the preparatory commissions for the Second Vatican Council, and resulted in Lumen Gentium’s non-Bellarminian understanding of ecclesial belonging.
 
 
 
This article traces the development of the Roman Catholic understand-ing of extra ecclesiam nulla salus between the Boston Heresy Case in the early 1940s and the Second Vatican Council.... - Geertjan Zuijdwegt
Lionel:
This article is based on Marchetti's false premise and inference. So it will be a break with the Bellarmine understanding of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
 
The Holy Office’s condemnation of the virtual limitation of salvation to Roman Catholics by Leonard Feeney and his followers is commonly construed as an important step in the development of an inclusivist under-standing of ecclesial belonging.
Lionel:
The Holy Office 1949 made a factual mistake. It was an objective mistake and not just a mistake in theology. It was an error of observation. In a sense it was a philosophical error. Upon this error it based the new theology.

The real development of the Church’s official position was initiated and partly accomplished in the debates in the preparatory commissions for the Second Vatican Council, and resulted in Lumen Gentium’s non-Bellarminian understanding of ecclesial belonging.
Lionel:
Without Marchetti's error, Lumen Gentium supports the Bellarmine understanding of ecclesial belonging.-Lionel Andrades

Now the error has been identified. Over time people will realize that what Feeney believed in was de fide and it was Cushing and Marchetti who were in heresy

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/04/now-error-has-been-identified-over-time.html 

The error was not corrected. Cushing brought it into Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) with no opposition. Even the traditionalists agreed with him!

 
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/04/the-error-was-not-corrected-cushing.html 

No text in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore or the Council of Trent says there are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/04/no-text-in-quanto-conficiamur-moerore.html