Thursday, June 21, 2012

If the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 said that the baptism of desire was an exception to the dogma they made a mistake: So why cannot the Leadership Conference of Women Religious hold the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus along with implicit baptism of desire ?


Extra ecclesiam nulla salus is at the centre of the LCWR problems e.g. in her LCWR keynote address in 1997 Sr. Sandra Schneider(1) 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.(2)The errors and ambiguity are there because they do not believe in the dogma on exclusive salvation being there in only the Catholic Church.

The speaker in August is Sr. Schneider since the LCWR  do not believe in the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.They probably assume like so many Catholics, influenced by the secular media, that  the Church no more teaches this dogma. They believ  Cardinal Francesco Marchetti-Selvaggiani in the Letter of the Holy Office suggested that the baptism of desire is an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma. So the sisters write off the dogma and  Vatican Council II (AG 7).

In other words a cardinal can overrule an ex cathedra dogma (Cantate Domino, Council of Florence etc) and also Vatican Council II.

If Cardinal Francesco Marchetti-Selvaggiani assumed that Fr. Leoanrd Feeney was wrong because he denied the baptism of desire then the cardinal made a mistake. Since the baptism of desire is irrelevant to the dogmatic teaching. It is always implicit.

So there is nothing which prevents the LCWR affirming the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus along with implicit-to-us and explicit-to-God baptism of desire, invincible ignorance, a good conscience and being saved with the ‘seeds of the word’.

When the LCWR affirms the literal interpretation of the salvation dogma  Sr. Schneider will appear heretical.The LCWR would be able to support  their views with Vatican Council II (AG 7) while there is no text in Vatican Council II which Sr. Schneider could use, as a reference for her teachings.The LCWR would be faithful to the Magisterium of the centuries, to Vatican Council II and magisterial teachings like  Dominus Iesus 20 and the Catechism of the Catholic Church 845,846.
-Lionel Andrades
1.

2.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/06/reality-check-lcwr-cdf-and-doctrinal.html


Photos adapted from Nun Justice Project.

No comments: