Fr.Brian Harrison like Bro. Andre Marie MICM affirm the literal and traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. In the sense that there are no exceptions.
However at the same time they will not say that the Letter of the Holy office 1949 was wrong to infer that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, are relevant to the dogma and so could not be exceptions.
Instead they will go into theology and say correctly that there are no exceptions.
Similarly, since they both infer that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are known and visible to us, they extend this irrational reasoning to Vatican Council II.
So for both of them LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc contradict the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Feeneyite version.
If they admitted that there is no known and visible exception to the dogmatic teaching ( all need the baptism of water in the Catholic Church in the present times) they could say that the Letter of the Holy Office is factually incorrect. Also, Vatican Council II does not contradict the traditional teaching on other religions and ecumenism, unless one assumes that people saved in Heaven are physically visible and known on earth to be explicit exceptions to the dogma.If one uses this irrational premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II text, then the Council emerges as a break with Tradition.
So on one hand they affirm the dogma and on the other hand they infer that the baptism of desire etc are visible and known to be exceptions.
Fr.Harrison in one post on the Internet sais he affirms extra ecclesiam nulla salus but is not a Feeneyite.
These are the conflicting positions that have been coming across to us, even from the SSPX and their supporters.http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.i...
Vatican Council II has a continuity with the past with respect to the other religions ( dogma on salvation), ecumenism and religous liberty
http://catholicism.org/ad-rem-no-238.html
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment