Home › Forums › All Things Catholic › Website Says Feeneyism Is Heresy Instead Of Cushingism › Reply To: Website Says Feeneyism Is Heresy Instead Of Cushingism
Thank you LARoberts for your informative report about the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in Los Angeles. They are mentioned on the websites of the Sisters of St.Benedict Center,Worcester one of the communities who have canonical status. Little is known about the community in Los Angeles.So I am glad that you know them personally .
I sympathise with them since being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are not exceptions to the dogma, and neither are they even an issue relative to the dogma. This was the creation of the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits there who also inserted it in Vatican Council II. Their bishop may not know this.
The Church always accepted that a person can be saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire but never assumed that they were explicit cases and known cases and so exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This was the Richard Cushing Error which is widespread in the Catholic Church. So I can understand the difficulty the brothers have in Los Angeles.
I am also glad that you have acknowledged that Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for disobedience and not heresy. He did not go to Rome when called, he did not accept a transfer, he called the Archbishop a heretic and was disobedient to him on doctrine/dogma.
You have written:
they are not willing to maintain their strict opinon regarding Extra Ecclesia without condemning the writings of Pope Pius XII and other Popes and Theologians.
They affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus just as Fr.Leonard Feeney and they say that there is no baptism of desire that we know of which can be an exception to the dogma.
Wouldn’t you agree with that ?
This was the teaching of the popes in the ordinary magisterium and their quotations are available on the internet.
This was the teaching of Pope Pius XII if you use the defacto-dejure analysis and not the irrational defacto-defacto analysis.
The Letter said that de facto every one needs to enter the Church with no exception (it refers to ‘the dogma’) and de jure, in principle a person can be saved with the bapism of desire and this would be not known to us. These cases are known only to God. So the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 does not contradict the philosophical Principle of Non Contradiction.
The Archbishop of Boston was saying that everyone needs to enter the Church defacto according to the dogma and the centuries old interpretation – but defacto there were exceptions ; there were those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. Since they were exceptions it is implied that we de facto know these cases. This is irrational. It also violates the Principle of Non Contradiction. How can you say everyone needs to de facto enter the Church and also say some people do not de facto have to enter the Church ? And you don’t even know who these people are.