...and Michael Voris could also direct the question, he asked Fr.Jonathan Morris, to the communities of Fr. Leonard Feeney, the St.Benedict Centers,(SBC) USA.
On the surface it would appear that the question does not apply to the SBC since they have been saying that every body needs the baptism of water to go to Heaven and there are no exceptions. For them there are no exceptions of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance.
Yet they never have corrected the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) by telling them, that the baptism of desire etc are hypothetical and not visible to us.So they cannot be exceptions. Instead they have gone into theology.
Neither have they corrected the many writers on the Internet who assume the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.The SBC has never said that the baptism of desire is not visible to us. So we cannot name any exception.
The apologists Mons. Fenton and Fr.William Most have never considered the baptism of desire as irrelevant to extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the St.Benedict Centers have not noticed it.
If the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 said it was relevant to the dogma then it made a factual mistake.It is a fact that we cannot see the dead.
If the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 said it was relevant to the dogma then it made a factual mistake.It is a fact that we cannot see the dead.
It is because the SBC have considered being saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance, as being visible, that they assume Vatican Council II contradicts extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the traditional teaching on other religions and ecumenism.
Michael Voris could ask them : Can you name someone saved in invincible ignorance or a good conscience (Lumen Gentium 16 )?Could you name someone saved with elements of sanctification (Lumen Gentium 8 ) ?These cases would have to visible for us if Vatican Council II is to contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Yes every needs to enter the Church, I would agree with the SBC and have done so all these years, but elements of sanctification and invincible ignorance are not visible to us and so they are not issue related to the dogma.On the de fide component of the dogma I agree with the SBC. I adnire them for holding firmly to the Faith and the truth all these years while we were in confusion.
Where does Vatican Council II contradict the Catholic Church's teaching on other religions and extra ecclesiam nulla salus, if there are no visible exceptions ?
Then I am told by SBC supporters that if one claims there is even one person in Heaven saved without the baptism of water it contradicts the dogma.Yes, this would be true !-if the baptism of desire etc were visible. How can invisible cases contradict Fr.Leonard Feeney ?
So when Fr.Jonathan Morris said on Fox News 'that not every one needs to be Catholic' Michael Voris asked him to name someone who does not have to be Catholic. Does he know anyone personally ? Is there such a case visible to him ? ( 'What Did he Just Say ? (March 1,2013 )ChurchMilitant TV.com video ).Fr.Jonathan Morris has not commented or apologised over the last few weeks.
Michael Voris could ask the SSPX and the FSSP the same question.That question could also be asked of the traditionalists at the St.Benedict Center in the dioceses of Worcester and Manchester,USA.
Basically, what he will be asking is: how can Vatican Council II be considered modernist, with regard to other religions and Christian communities, unless it is assumed that references to salvation in Vatican Council II are of cases visible to us in 2013.So then they would be known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They would also be known exceptions to Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II which says all need 'faith and baptism' for salvation. If there are no names then the Council does not contradict Tradition.The Council is not a break with the past.
We cannot name any 'good and holy' (NA) non Catholic saved in 2013 , we cannot name any one saved 'in imperfect communion with the Church' (UR), we cannot name any one, known personally, saved with the 'seeds of the Word' etc.
The Council does not contradict itself or the dogma on salvation nor Fr.Leonard Feeney , unless we assume , like liberals and traditionalists and sedevacantists, that the dead who are saved, are visible to us and so we can name them.
-Lionel Andrades
Michael Vorris' question to Fr.Jonathan Moris could also be directed to the Society of St.Pius X
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/03/michael-vorris-question-to-frjonathan.html#links
http://eens.forumotion.com/t20-frjonathan-morris-needs-to-apologise-says-michael-voris#226
It has been part of Fr.Jonathan Morris' formation that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and that Vatican Council II contradicts itself
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment