Even the St.Benedict Centers whom Fr.Kramer criticizes interprets Vatican Council II with the same irrational reasoning.

Lionel,
maybe this is nothing of importance, but I just read Father Gruner’s comments on EENS here:

I’m referring to first sets of comments directly below the video.
He seems to be a fervent supporter of a somewhat correct interpretation of the dogma.
Maybe you can contact him, and seeing how he has a relatively big media apparatus behind him, you can encourage him to promote orthodoxy on the matter to a wider audience.

Berto.

Lionel:

Here is Fr.Gruner’s good reply.

Thank you for your conscientious reply. Bishop Hay did much more justice to the need for a fuller, cogent argument (as you point out) than a single quote can demonstrate. You can find his full treatment of this important topic in his book, The Sincere Christian, in the Appendix titled, “An Inquiry, Whether Salvation Can Be Had without True Faith, and Out of the Communion of the Church of Christ?” (This classic text is online athttps://archive.org/stream/worksofbishophay02hayuoft#page/n363/mode/2up See pages 274-365 in the electronic pagination, corresponding to pages 259-348 of the printed book.)

Of course the advantage (and responsibility) of having definitions of the Faith is that we have a clear and explicit norm, according to which all non-infallible expressions – such as those of the Second Vatican Council – must be understood.

That Vatican II’s teachings differ in authoritativeness from all previous ecumenical councils is clear from a variety of admissions even from those involved in the Council. As Pope Paul VI admitted, “In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility….” (General Audience of January 12, 1966, 6th paragraph;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/audiences/1966/documents/hf_p-vi_aud_19660112_it.html) Cardinal Ratzinger also made this well-known comment: “The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council.” (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Address to the Bishops of Chile, July 13, 1988;http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3032) Bishop Thomas Morris recalled his “relief” at learning of the Council’s non-infallible theological note, and he admitted that this casual attitude led him to give approval to documents which he knew had been sloppily worded: “I was relieved when we were told that this Council was not aiming at defining or giving final statements on doctrine, because a statement of doctrine has to be very carefully formulated, and I … regarded the Council documents as tentative and likely to be reformed.” (“A Bishop’s Candid Memories of Vatican II,” Catholic World News, January 22, 1997,http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=4091&repos=4&subrepos=1&searchid=1265687)

The dogma that outside of the Church there is neither forgiveness of sins nor salvation, is commonly contradicted today by theologians and clergy, and is perhaps generally even unknown to the Catholic laity, but this does not make the Church’s teaching any less true. The rule of Catholic Faith remains clear in the Church’s solemn definitions. And certainly it would be as manifestly absurd as it is untrue to suggest that the Church’s infallible proclamations are not sufficiently clear so as to allow us to arrive at the truth of Catholic teaching by what the Pope defines, but only through what some non-infallible theologian says about what the Pope defines!

Here are three precise and infallible expressions of the Catholic teaching, to which we are bound to conform our beliefs:

“We firmly believe and simply confess that … there is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council; Dz. 430, D.S. 802.)

“We firmly believe and simply confess this [one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church], outside which there is no salvation nor remission of sin.” (Boniface VIII, Bull Unam Sanctam; Dz. 469, D.S. 875.)

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Eugene IV, Bull Cantate Domino; Dz. 714, D.S. 1351.)
____________________________________________________

I have written often to Your Questions Answered and also directly to Fr.Gruner and John Vennari but received no acknowledgement or answer.

While what he says above is correct and traditional he has never corrected the SSPX position. He has never mentioned that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance can be accepted as possibilities but not exceptions to the dogma since they are not visible to us in real-time.
Recently Fr.Paul Kramer made the same SSPX mistake.He is not aware of the eror in the Letter of the Holy Office.
Even the St.Benedict Centers whom Fr.Kramer criticizes interprets Vatican Council II with the same irrational reasoning.

-Lionel Andrades

http://www.harvestingthefruit.com/topic/archbishop-lefebvre-made-a-mistake/#post-5220