The doctrinal scenario has changed.
Fr.Nicholas Gruner already affirms extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So he can accept Vatican Council II (AG 7) which supports extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
He can continue to accept a Vatican Council II II in which LG 16,LG 8,UR 3 etc are invisible and implicit for us ,only. So there are no exceptions in Vatican Council II to Fr.Gruner's traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
He can continue to reject Vatican Council II in which LG 16,LG 8,UR 3 etc are assumed to be invisible and explicit to his interpretation of the dogma on salvation.
Fr.Gruner can continue to reject Vatican Council II in which LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc are considered to be visible and explicit for us in 2014. This is irrational.
So he is affirming Tradition along with Vatican Council II (without the irrationality).
He can continue his Fatima apostolate like any other Catholic priest , while supporting Vatican Council II interpreted without the false premise.
Similarly SSPX priests can accept the Council without the false premise of being able to see the dead-saved who are known exceptions to Tradition.
Since the Council, without the false premise does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus,Vatican Council II is traditional on the issue of other religions and Christian communities.
Non Catholics need to convert into the Church according to the dogma on exclusive salvation, Vatican Council II (AG 7), the Catechism of the Catholic Church 845,846, Redemptoris Missio 55 etc.
Vatican Council II (AG 7) indicates most people on earth are oriented to Hell, unless they convert into the Catholic Church, since they die without 'faith and baptism'. All who are in Heaven are there without mortal sin and with 'faith and baptism'.There are only Catholics in Heaven.
The ordinary means of salvation in the Catholic Church is 'faith and baptism' and not invincible ignorance(LG 16), imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3), seeds of the Word (AG 11) etc.
All priests of the SSPX can affirm implicit and invisible for us baptism of desire along with the traditional and literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 supported Fr.Leonard Feeney on doctrine.It referred to 'the dogma', the 'infallible teaching'. The text of the dogma does not mention any known exceptions.
When we pray 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin' (Nicene Creed) we are always referring to the baptism of water. We cannot administer the baptism of desire nor are there any known cases.
The way is open for Fr.Gruner and the SSPX priests to accept Vatican Council II (without the false premise) in accord with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
There was an irrationality being used on which was based a new theology. I am only removing the irrationality. Theology returns to 'normal'. I am not presenting a new theology.
-Lionel Andrades
-Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment