Exclusivist ecclesiocentrism—the fruit of a specific theological system or of a mistaken understanding of the phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus—is no longer defended by Catholic theologians after the clear statements of Pius XII and Vatican Council II on the possibility of salvation for those who do not belong visibly to the Church (cf, e.g., LG 16; GS 22).-International Theological Commission, Christianity and the World Religions 1997.62…A theological evaluation of the religions was impeded over a long time because of the principle extra ecclesiam nulla salus, understood in an exclusivist sense.- Christianity and the World Religions.
Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.j, the Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Vatican and Frs. Francois Laisney and Peter Scott of the SSPX do not make the principle,in fact distinction when reading the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
59. The Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston (1949) offers further specifications. “To gain eternal salvation, it is not always required that a person be incorporated in reality (reapse) as a member of the Church, but it is necessary that one belong to it at least in desire and longing (voto et desiderio). It is not always necessary that this desire be explicit as it is with catechumens. When one is invincibly ignorant, God also accepts an implicit desire, so called because it is contained in the good disposition of soul by which a person wants his or her will to be conformed to God’s will”.-The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without Baptism-2007 ITC.(http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_index-doc-pubbl_en.html )
In principle “To gain eternal salvation, it is not always required that a person be incorporated in reality (reapse) as a member of the Church, but it is necessary that one belong to it at least in desire and longing (voto et desiderio). In fact, de facto, every one with no known exception needs to enter the Church as a member for salvation.
In principle and known to God only “It is not always necessary that this desire be explicit as it is with catechumens. When one is invincibly ignorant, God also accepts an implicit desire, so called because it is contained in the good disposition of soul by which a person wants his or her will to be conformed to God’s will”. Explicitly, every one needs to be a member of the Church for salvation and we do not know any implicit cases saved in the present times.
58. In the face of new problems and situations and of an exclusive interpretation of the adage: “salus extra ecclesiam non est”,[88] the magisterium, in recent times, has articulated a more nuanced understanding as to the manner in which a saving relationship with the Church can be realized. The Allocution of Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quadam (1854) clearly states the issues involved: “It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it, will perish in the flood. On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who live in ignorance of the true religion, if such ignorance be invincible, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord”-The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without Baptism-2007 ITC.(http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_index-doc-pubbl_en.html
Defacto, explicitly “ the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it, will perish in the flood.” in the present times." In principle (dejure) “ it must likewise be held as certain that those who live in ignorance of the true religion, if such ignorance be invincible, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord”.
We have to use the in principle, in fact explaination because of the confusion caused by Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits at Boston. They first created confusion with the interpretation of the Letter of the Holy Office and their relationship with the cardinal at the Holy Office and then they included this confusion in the texts of Vatican Council II. They did not realize that the baptism of desire etc is not an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
The SSPX priest Francois Laisney like Cardinal Ladaria has built upon this error and even written a book, ‘Is Feeneyism Catholic ?’
The SSPX has in general made the error their own and have used it to interpret Vatican Council II as a liberal Council.They all assume that those saved in invincible ignorance and a good conscience (LG 16) are explicit exceptions to the dogma and AG 7.
If they understood that there were no explicit exceptions then Vatican Council II would not be seen as an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma. This would mean Vatican Council II is in agreement with the dogma. So Vatican Council II is really in agreement with Tradition. This is the hermeneutic of continuity. There are no doctrinal differences. Vatican Council II is in agreement with the SSPX position on ecumenism, other religions and religious liberty.
It is the Vatican-side,Cardinal Luiz Ladaria etc, who are interpreting the Council as a break from Tradition since they are not aware of the Richard Cushing Error.This is the hermeneutic of rupture.
The Church has been and still is exclusive ecclesiocentric.In fact ecclesiocentric always meant exclusivity.-Lionel Andrades
___________________________________________
VATICAN COUNCIL II DOES NOT CONTRADICT ITSELF: LUMEN GENTIUM 14 AND AD GENTES 7 DO NOT CONTRADICT ITSELF :NEITHER ARE THEY CONTRADICTED BY LUMEN GENTIUM 16
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/06/vatican-council-ii-does-not-contradict.html#links
Fr. Francois Laisney indicates that for the SSPX the Church is no more ecclesiocentric since there are explicit exceptions to the dogma on salvation
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/06/fr-francois-laisney-indicates-that-for.html#links
___________________________________________
VATICAN COUNCIL II DOES NOT CONTRADICT ITSELF: LUMEN GENTIUM 14 AND AD GENTES 7 DO NOT CONTRADICT ITSELF :NEITHER ARE THEY CONTRADICTED BY LUMEN GENTIUM 16
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/06/vatican-council-ii-does-not-contradict.html#links
Fr. Francois Laisney indicates that for the SSPX the Church is no more ecclesiocentric since there are explicit exceptions to the dogma on salvation
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/06/fr-francois-laisney-indicates-that-for.html#links
Posts
4 comments:
Lionel,
In regards to Baptism of Desire, it is a very reasonable and a fair question for me to ask a Bishop, please explain to me how Baptism of Desire would occur and if a person did receive Baptism of Desire how that would be judged. Lastly if a person did receive Baptism of Desire what other requirements would be necessary for that person to gain Salvation?
I know and accept readily that the Church teaches the possibilities of Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood and Invincible Ignorance. If the Church would simply make a teaching { "Go forth and TEACH all people"} degree on my questions in the first paragraph, I believe this constant failure to address the totality of these possibilities has hurt the Church long enough. With the help of the Holy Ghost we could have closure on this subject.
In my heart, soul and mind, I believe that I already know the answer but that is not for me to articulate on this post. Alright....Alright..... clue>>>>>>> IN GOD WE TRUST.
JMJ,
George
George Brenner
In regards to Baptism of Desire, it is a very reasonable and a fair question for me to ask a Bishop, please explain to me how Baptism of Desire would occur and if a person did receive Baptism of Desire how that would be judged.
Lionel:
This is a good question to ask the bishop.
Also could you ask him if it is possible to know any person in 2012 who has been saved with the baptism of desire ?
I assume he will say no we do not know any such person and cannot know.
Then ask him if he would agree that:
All need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation and if there is any person saved with implicit desire or in invincible ignorance it would be known only to God ?
If he says Yes then it means that implicit desire is only a possibity and not explicitly known.
So it is not an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesam nulla salus.
Also could you please ask supporters of Fr.Leonard Feeney if they know anyone saved with implicit desire followed by the baptism of water.
If they answer no then it would mean that these rare cases are known only to God. Since they are not explicit to us they are not an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
So does it meam that those saved with implicit desire or in invincible ignorance are unknown to us and so irrelevant to the literal interpretation of the dogma?
Implicit desire and invincible ignorance etc does not contradict the dogma ?
God Bless you Lionel,
I agree with what you said 100%. I believe that Father Feeney perfectly described how we should teach our Faith. There is NO teaching or contact situation that any Catholic would encounter that they would not hold fast to Baptism of Water and No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church; period. Since we can have no knowledge of their occurrence Baptism of Blood, Baptism of Desire or Invincible ignorance are recognized as possibilities that are entrusted to the mercy of God. In fact I believe that the last sentence should be the position of SSPX and should be the easily understood teaching of the Church. It seems like everyone is getting hung up on 'known' versus 'unknown' as the stumbling block. Baptism of Water and No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church are in our hands to teach exclusively. Baptism of Blood , Baptism of Desire and Invincible Ignorance as possibilities are completely and exclusively left up to God alone.
Has the Church ever named one Martyr that did not receive Baptism of water before they gave they gave their life for the faith? I do not believe so. If the Church does know, I would like to know their name(s). The Holy Innocents are Saints but that occurred before Jesus founded the Church.
Has the church ever named a Saint that died in the state of Invincible ignorance? The answer is no.
Has the Church ever named a Saint that went to Heaven because of Baptism of Desire? The answer is no.
Would a Sister ever say to her students, please raise your hand if you think you could die and be in the state of invincible Ignorance about our Catholic Faith?
Can we have hope and pray that aborted babies go to Heaven? answer is of course. Can we teach that they do go to Heaven. answer is absolutely not. ( Unless someday the Pope makes an Ex Cathedra pronouncement or it becomes a Doctrine of the Church ).
JMJ,
George
Post a Comment