by Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton
analysis of, Cantate Domino:
(1) All of those outside the Church, even the individuals who have committed no sin against the faith itself, are in a position in which they cannot be saved unless they in some way enter or join the Church before they die.
(2) The alternative to eternal and supernatural salvation is deprivation of the Beatific Vision. In the case of those who are guilty of mortal sin which remains unrepented, this includes both the penalty of loss and the penalty of sense in hell.
(3) The spiritual condition of one who is not “within” the Church at least by an act of implicit desire is incompatible with the reception of the life of sanctifying grace.
This document insists that pagans, Jews, heretics, and schismatics will not be saved unless, before the end of their lives, they are joined (aggregati) to the one true Church. p. 40-41
Pius IX
… it is perfectly possible for a man to die “outside” the true Church and to be excluded from the Beatific Vision forever without having his ignorance of the true Church or of the true religion counted as a moral fault. That is precisely what Pope Pius IX said in the Singulari quadam. He said it, as the context shows, as part of his explanation of the fact that the Catholic dogma of the Church’s necessity for the attainment of eternal salvation in no way involves a contradiction of the doctrines about God’s sovereign mercy and justice.
In this section of the Singulari quadam Pope Pius IX goes on to urge the Bishops of the Catholic Church to use all of their energies to drive from the minds of men the deadly error that the way of salvation can be found in any religion. To a certain extent this is a mere restatement of the erroneous opinion according to which we may well hope for the salvation of men who have never entered in any way into the Catholic Church, the first misinterpretation of Catholic teaching…
One of the most interesting factors in this section of the allocution is the fact that Pope Pius IX forbids his people to inquire into the presence or the lack or the extent of invincible ignorance in individual cases. He actually goes so far as to insist that it is wrong to go beyond the teaching that there is one God, one faith, and one baptism. p. 47
The primary and central object of the Church’s doctrinal ministry is to be found in the body of truth revealed by God through Our Lord Jesus Christ, and delivered to the Church by His Apostles as doctrine to be accepted with the assent of divine faith. The secondary object of that ministry embraces all and only those truths which the Church must be able to teach inerrantly in order to teach its primary object adequately as a living and infallible teaching body. The decision as to just what would constitute invincible, as distinct from vincible or culpable, ignorance of the Catholic Church in any individual case does not fall within the confines of either object. And, as a matter of fact, this decision is something which man in this life is quite incapable of forming rightly. p.48
On, Singulari quadam:
(1) It is a ruinous error to imagine that one can have grounds for hope that people now dead, and who had not entered into the Church in any way during the course of their lives, are saved.
(2) The dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church is in no way opposed to the truth that God is all-merciful and all-just.
(3) The doctrine that no one is saved outside the Catholic Church is a truth revealed by God through Jesus Christ, and a truth which all men must believe with the assent of divine faith. It is a Catholic dogma.
(4) Invincible ignorance, of the true Church or of anything else, is not considered by God as a sin. The dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church in no way implies that invincible ignorance is sinful.
(5) It is an impious and deadly error to hold that salvation may be attained in any religion.
(6) It is not within the field either of our competence or of our rights to search out the way in which God’s mercy and His justice operate in any given case of a person ignorant of the true Church or of the true religion. We shall see how these divine attributes have operated in the light of the Beatific Vision itself. p. 56
Tags: and schismatics, Beatific Vision, Cantate Domino, heretics, Jews, Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton, pagans, Pope Pius IX, Singulari quadam
Thursday, December 1, 2011
GAPS IN THE WRITING OF MONS. JOSEPH FENTON ?
Mons. Fenton would like to believe that Cantate Domino refers to implicit baptism of desire since he implies that the baptism of desire is known and visible to us.I write this with reference to a quote on this blog by Bro.Anthony T.O.R. He also assumed that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 referred to explicit baptism of desire as did the Archbishop of Boston.
He never pointed out in his writings that the Letter of the Holy Office supported Fr. Leonard Feeney on doctrine. He could not, since he assumed that those who are saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are known to us.The Archbishop said so and he assumes so did the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
So he is trying to accommodate this point in Cantate Domino even though the dogma says every one needs to convert into the Church.
In general Mons. Fenton affirms the dogma and says every one needs to enter the Church but he then implies there are visible exceptions with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance.Theologically he defended the dogma well against errors of his time in the USA.
The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance was known at the time of Cantate Domino and it was not assumed to be an exception to the dogma.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 does not imply that those who do not know about Jesus and the Church are exceptions to the dogma. This was the false assumption of the Archbishop of Boston Richard Cushing- and Mons. Joseph Fenton ? The Letter does not support Mons.Fenton here.
The Letter is not a criticism of Fr.Leonard Feeney since he was not saying that ‘only those who know’ can be saved. He was affirming the dogma which says all people need to convert into the Church and not just ‘those who know’.(Cantate Domino, Council of Florence etc).
Those who are saved with the baptism of desire are not exceptions to the dogma. There is no visible baptism of desire.The baptism of desire would have to be visible and explicit to be an exception to the dogmatic teaching. So this passage cannot be held against Fr.Leonard Feeney. Mons. Fenton suggests that there was salvation outside the church and cited those with the baptism of desire. Yes but these cases are unknown to us. He implies that these cases are known so are exceptions to the dogma. The Society of St.Pius X makes the sane error. They say every one needs to enter the Church and they also claim that there are known exceptions. Hence they could not say that all those present at Assisi III are oriented to Hell. How could they do so? Since for them there could be some known exceptions!!!
It was Cardinal Richard Cushing who assumed that the baptism of desire was an exception to the dogma. He believed that those saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma. Fr.Feeney said the contrary.
Where does Mons. Fenton say that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 mentioned ‘the dogma’, ‘the infallible statement’ and the dogma indicates all non Catholics in Boston need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell? Where did he say that the Letter of the Holy Office agrees with Fr. Leonard Feeney on doctrine?
Where does Mons. Fenton mention that there is a dejure-defacto pattern in magisterial texts ? Did he notice it?
Did Mons. Fenton use a dejure-defacto analysis of magisterial texts including the Letter of the Holy Office ?
Did he mention the Principle of Non Contradiction when interpreting the Letter of the Holy Office and Vatican Council II ?
Did he discuss how could Fr. Leonard Feeney be in heresy for making the same statements as the popes and saints ?
Did he ever consider that Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits at Boston College were in heresy for suggesting that there was an explicitly known baptism of desire and it contradicted an ‘infallible statement’ ?
Did he ever discuss a visible baptism of desire being an exception to a defined dogma ?
Without the defacto-dejure analysis will there not be ambiguity in his writings ?
-Lionel Andrades
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/12/gaps-in-writing-of-mons-joseph-fenton.html
Friday, December 9, 2011
DID MSGR.JOSEPH C.FENTON DISCOVER THOSE SAVED IN INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE AND THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE ARE NOT EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOGMA ?
SSPX priests assume that those saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance are known to us in the present time and so are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Young priests with the SSPX have read Msgr. Joseph Fenton as part of their formation and so believe that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was a criticism of Fr. Leonard Feeney and not the Archbishop of Boston.
Msgr.Joseph Fenton, editor of The American Ecclesiastical Review defends the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and remains faithful to teachings of the traditional Magisterium. He had to be faithful to the teachings of the Church while the ecclesiatiscal magisterium, at least in the USA, was promoting a new doctrine which said that the dogma had exceptions. This was heresy. He was faced with the intellectually impossible task of reconciling the dogma which said every one needs to convert into the Church, with the new teaching, that there are defacto exceptions. How could he still be faithful to the tradition of previous popes and the confusion in the USA?
He bravely fought on. In his writings he focused on the dogma and so did not err but the gaps showed when it came to the issue of those non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.
He believed that Fr. Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for denying that there could be de facto exceptions to the dogma. It seems so, from his writings which refer to the priest being condemned.
He never mentioned that the dogma supported Fr. Leonard Feeney and there was no defacto known exception like the baptism of desire etc. He was using the defacto -defacto reasoning of the Archbishop. He never called attention to the defacto–dejure theme which was there in Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents.
Did he discover all this before he surprisingly resigned as editor of The American Ecclesiastical Review ?
He must have been up against the Principle of Non Contradiction numerous times.Finally he could have realised the error. He was interpreting the Letter of the Holy Office according to the Archbishop and the Jesuits of his time and assuming this was the teaching of the Holy See.
It was obvious to him that the dogma could not be reconciled with the new errors in Boston.(1). This was the error years before Vatican Council II.
There are those who can be saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire as exceptions and it would be known only to God. These exceptional cases could have,a genuine desire and charity and God could give them the grace, in these exceptional cases, to receive the baptism of water . This is possible. We do not know.
We do not know who these exceptional cases are on earth and so they do not contradict the ‘the dogma as it has been stated in the authoritative declarations of the ecclesiastical magisterium and even as it is expressed in the axiom or formula ‘Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.’ We do not even know if God permits these cases, hypothetical for us, to be saved after they receive the baptism of water.
In general, the ordinary means of salvation Msgr. Fenton knew was Catholic Faith and the baptism of water (Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II).
The Catholic Church and Salvation by Msgr. Fenton is published by the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). SSPX priests also assume that those saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance are known to us in the present time and so are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This error is there in the writings of Fr.Peter Scott and Fr.Francois Laisney of the SSPX.
Young priests with the SSPX have read Msgr. Fenton as part of their formation and so believe that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was a criticism of Fr. Leonard Feeney and not the Archbishop of Boston. The Letter does not mention that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma they have to imply this just as the Archbishop of Boston Richard Cushing.
One could also imply that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was a criticism of the Archbishop since it clearly endorsed ‘the dogma’, ‘the infallible statement’. Doctrinally, Fr.Leonard Feeney was in agreement with ‘the dogma’ which does not mention any exceptions, implicit or explicit.
-Lionel Andrades.
1.
Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, pp. 124, 126: “The teaching that the dogma of the necessity of the Church for salvation admits of exceptions is, in the last analysis, a denial of the dogma as it has been stated in the authoritative declarations of the ecclesiastical magisterium and even as it is expressed in the axiom or formula ‘Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.’
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/12/did-msgr.html
aturday, December 17, 2011
ARCHBISHOP OF BOSTON CARDINAL RICHARD CUSHINGS LEGACY: FOLLOWERS INCLUDE USCCB, EWTN, CATHOLIC ANSWERS, SSPX, SEDEVACANTISTS MHFM
He assumed the baptism of desire was visible and so contradicted the dogma outside the church there is no salvation. He assumed that those saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance were known to us and so it contradicts Fr. Leonard Feeney’s traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Since the time of the Archbishop Cardinal Richard Cushing it is assumed there are two interpretations of the dogma. 1)the rigorist interpretation of Fr. Leonard Feeney, the popes and saints and 2) the non rigorist interpretation. The non rigorist interpretation says everyone needs to enter the Church for salvation except for those in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. It is assumed here that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma. So this is a ‘new ‘interpretation.
We now know that there is only one interpretation of the dogma, the centuries old interpretation since the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are not known to us.
It is assumed that Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance, good conscience) is an exception to the dogma. This would be assuming that those saved in invincible ignorance are defacto known to us in particular cases. We know that they are not visible and explicitly known to us but known only to God. So they are not exceptions to the dogma.
De facto everyone needs to enter the Church for salvation. De jure in principle those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are known only to God. The baptism of water is explicit. The baptism of desire is implicit.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was addressed directly to the Archbishop of Boston. It was critical of the Archbshop. It mentioned ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible statement’. The dogma does not mention any exceptions. The dogma also indicates, like Fr. Leonard Feeney, that everyone needs to explicitly enter the Church for salvation.
Today the USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops), Eternal Word Television Network, Catholic Answers, Society of St. Pius X, Pontifical seminaries and universities, sedevacantists, priests, nuns and lay Catholics are all unknowingly following the legacy of the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits of Boston College.
They assume the baptism of desire etc is visible and so is an exception to the dogma.
-Lionel Andrades
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Practically everyone needs the baptism of water for salvation while in theory a person can be saved with the baptism of desire – Rector, Church Santa Maria Annunziata, Rome
Being saved with the baptism of desire etc he said is an impossibility. ( ‘impossibilisimo’).The Franciscan had got it right. The baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are not ‘practical’ ( defacto) exceptions .To claim that they are practical exceptions would be indifferentism and syncretism. It would be a negation of an infallible teaching. This would be a mortal sin and heresy. The stuff of excommunications. It would be a sacrilege for the priest offering Holy Mass.
Today morning at 10.30 a.m the priest offered Holy Mass in Italian with his face towards the altar and not the congregation. Communicants also received the Eucharist kneeling on a single pew, placed in the centre aisle.He was the Rector of the Church, Santa Maria di Annunziata, Rome.The Rector from the community Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate founded by Fr. Stefano Manelli F.I spoke on the necessity of the baptism of water for all people to go to Heaven.
On the feast of the baptism of Our Lord, in his homily he said, that being saved with the baptism of desire is an impossibility and is accepted only in theory.
Most of his homily dealt with the subject of the necessity of the baptism of water for salvation. The ordinary means.
There is the need for missionaries he said who would go out to the pagans. The Church is missionary.
The Rector based his talk on the teachings of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. However he left out the issue of the Protestants and the Orthodox Christians who were baptized with water.
Protestants who die immediately after receiving the baptism of water I thought could go to Heaven. If they lived on after baptism they would need to live the Gospel according to the teachings of the Catholic Church and with the necessary helps of the Sacraments. Without the Sacraments of the Catholic Church they cannot go to Heaven. This is similar to a Catholic in mortal sin who does not use the Sacrament of Penance.He would be on the way to Hell.
The homily today was on a positive and pleasant note according to the instructions of the Vatican and the Vicariate. Since I have been writing on this subject I could understand the priest’s nuances and accent of certain points. In brief what he was saying, and not saying clearly and directly, is that millions of people are oriented to Hell. Since they are not in the Catholic Church.
He was saying really that all the members of non Christian religions (Hindus, Jews, Muslims etc) are oriented to Hell ‘practically’ and we do not know any case ‘practically’, of a non Catholic saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance.
So ‘practically’ there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Since only ‘in theory’ we accept that a non Catholic can be saved with a baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance.
The ordinary way ‘to go to Paradise’ (and avoid the fires of Hell) is the baptism of water given to adults with Catholic Faith in the Catholic Church.
I was thinking to myself, that since practically we do not know any case of a person saved in invincible ignorance, CCC 847-848 (invincible ignorance) is superfluous in the Catechism of the Catholic Church under the subheading Outside the Church No Salvation. Since in reality (practically) we do not know these ‘exceptions’.They cannot be exceptions to the traditional teaching that everyone needs to convert into the Church to avoid Hell.
The Catechism could suggest wrongly, or the reader could imply wrongly, that those saved with the baptism of desire are known to us practically. These cases it could be implied wrongly, are not just theoretical .
Also in these times the confusion has increased. Now due to political pressure the Vatican is teaching wrongly that Jews do not have to convert into the Church for salvation in the present times and that there is no attempt by the Church to convert Orthodox Christians.
Yet according to the dogma Cantate Domino, Council of Florence and according to the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, all Jews, Orthodox Christians and Protestants are oriented to Hell unless they convert into the Catholic Church.
The Franciscan priest recalled Jesus’ missionary teaching to ‘go out into the whole world and proclaim the Good News and baptize all people .Those who believe will be saved, those who are not baptized and do not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:15-16).Jews,Othodox Christians and Protestants do not believe within the Catholic Church.
The Franciscan had got it right. The baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are not ‘practical’( defacto) exceptions.To claim that they are practical exceptions would be indifferentism and syncretism. It would be a negation of an infallible teaching. This would be a mortal sin and heresy. The stuff of excommunications. It would be a sacrilege for the priest offering Holy Mass.-Lionel Andrades