Cardinal Walter Kaspar
In the course of the Council the “subsistit in” took the place of the previous “est”.[7] It contains in nuce the whole ecumenical problem.[8] The “est” claimed that the church of Christ Jesus “is” the Catholic Church. This strict identification of the church of Christ Jesus with the Catholic Church had been represented most recently in the encyclicals Mystici corporis (1943) and Humani generis (1950).[9] But even according to Mystici corporis there are people who, although they have not yet been baptised, are subsumed under the Catholic Church because that is their express desire (DS 3921). (Lionel: Cardinal Kaspar is using the right hand column here) Therefore Pius XII had condemned an exclusive interpretation of the axiom “Extra ecclesiam nulla salus” already in 1949.(Lionel: If he did condemn it, it would mean he thought cases of those saved with implicit desire and in invincible ignorance are visible to us and so are visible exceptions to the exclusive interpretation. He would be using the right hand column.)- Cardinal Walter Kaspar, on the website of the Vatican Council for Christian Unity (comments added)
Cardinal Luiz Ladaria
10. 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
(Lionel: Cardinal Ladaria assumes that 'the possibility of salvatiobn for those who do not belong visibly to the Church' are visible in the flesh. They would have to be visible in the flesh, personally known cases, for them to be exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney)
Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani
From what has been said it is evident that those things which are proposed in
the periodical , fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching
of the Catholic Church are far from being such and are very harmful both to
those
within the Church and those without.
From these declarations which pertain to doctrine, certain conclusions follow which regard discipline and conduct, and which cannot be unknown to those who vigorously defend the necessity by which all are bound' of belonging to the true Church and of submitting to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and of the Bishops "whom the Holy Ghost has placed . . . to rule the Church" (Acts 20:28).-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
(Lionel : 'Which pertain to doctrine' ! Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani assumes that implicit desire is explicit for us. So 'explicit' baptism of desire is a visible exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as interpreted by Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which he issued also assumes that those saved in invincible ignorance are 'visible in the flesh', explict exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It is a fact of life, that we cannot see the dead who are saved and now are in Heaven. So these cases are not relevant to the traditional interpretation of the dogma.)
-Lionel Andrades
within the Church and those without.
From these declarations which pertain to doctrine, certain conclusions follow which regard discipline and conduct, and which cannot be unknown to those who vigorously defend the necessity by which all are bound' of belonging to the true Church and of submitting to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and of the Bishops "whom the Holy Ghost has placed . . . to rule the Church" (Acts 20:28).-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
(Lionel : 'Which pertain to doctrine' ! Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani assumes that implicit desire is explicit for us. So 'explicit' baptism of desire is a visible exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as interpreted by Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which he issued also assumes that those saved in invincible ignorance are 'visible in the flesh', explict exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It is a fact of life, that we cannot see the dead who are saved and now are in Heaven. So these cases are not relevant to the traditional interpretation of the dogma.)
-Lionel Andrades
Franciscans of the Immaculate being forced to choose the right hand side column in the interpretation of Vatican Council II : conscience issue, injustice being done
Ecclesiastical blackmail?
There can be an implicit ( invisible) for us baptism of desire and an explicit ( visible) baptism of desire in this discussion on the Holy Office 1949
If the Holy Office suggested that implicit desire was an exception, to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney, then it would be saying that a hypothethical case is an exception ?
Franciscans of the Immaculate are not obliged to follow the Letter of the Holy Office's factual mistake
___________________________________________________
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment