The main doctrinal issue seems the rejection of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the dogma on the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra.
They have not removed the scandal by affirming the faith in public.They also contradict Vatican Council II (AG 7) and suggest that Vatican Council II contradicts itself (LG 16 vs AG 7).
When the text of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Doctrinal Assessment of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) (1) is read, one can ask why are the LCWR sisters allowed to receive the Eucharist since to reject an infallible teaching is a mortal sin.
I have mentioned in an earlier post that extra ecclesiam nulla salus is at the centre of the LCWR problem e.g. in her LCWR keynote address in 1997 Sr. Sandra Schneider said " It can no longer be taken for granted that the members [of a given congregation] share the same faith.” Why, because they don’t believe in the dogma?
In an LCWR keynote speech in 2007 Sr. Laurie Brink, O.P. spoke of “four different general ‘directions’ in which religious congregations seem to be moving.” She said that “not one of the four is better or worse than the others.” One of the directions described is “sojourning,” which she says “involves moving beyond the Church, even beyond Jesus. The Church is not necessary for salvation?
LCWR speakers also explore 'themes…that are frequently ambiguous, dubious or even erroneous with respect to Christian faith', writes Bishop Leonard P. Blair.The errors and ambiguity are there because they do not believe in the dogma on exclusive salvation being there in only the Catholic Church.
They have rejected the ecclesiology of exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church.
They assume that invincible ignorance (LG 16) is an explicit exception to the thrice defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So for the LCWR the Church Councils which issued the infallible statement on salvation were wrong - there are explicit exceptions for the LCWR. So the pope is not infallible ex cathedra according to them, since he has been contradicted by Vatican Council II (LG 16).
The main issue is that the LCWR sisters have rejected the dogmas on extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the infallibility of the pope. This is borne out in the CDF Doctrinal Assessment though it does not mention it directly.
To reject both these dogmas knowingly is a mortal sin . This sin is known in public. The sisters have not ended the scandal. They still have no right to receive the Eucharist unworthily. The conditions for receiving the Eucharist are known to them.
If the sisters were asked to recite the Nicene Creed it would not be enough. Since their understanding of 'Church' is different.In the Creed they do not believe 'in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin 'but in three defacto, known forms of baptism, which include the baptism of desire.
When they say I believe in 'the Holy Catholic Church' they mean a Church which includes those saved in invincible ignorance , a good conscience etc and who are known to us on earth.So these are explicit exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church.They are not referring to a Catholic Church in which there is exclusive salvation - Lionel Andrades
Report on Leadership Conference of Women Religious
Sr.Janet Mock doesn't realize that the LCWR sisters are confused on Vatican Council II and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.