Since the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 mentions being saved in invincible ignorance or with implicit desire as an exception to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center it makes a factual error. It infers that these cases are explicit for them to be exceptions.
If the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 only mentioned being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire ( implicit desire) and left it at that there would be no factual error.
It is a fact of life that we cannot see the dead who are in Heaven. So they cannot be considered exceptions to the traditional interrpetation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church.They are possibilities but not exceptions.
Vatican Council II mentions those saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) but does not state that these cases are explicit for us or that they are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
We can accept LG 16,LG 8, UR 3 etc as refering to dejure and not defacto cases. They can be accepted in principle as possibilities for salvation followed by the baptism of water and Catholic faith. They can be accepted as invisible cases for us known only to God.
When it is inferred that LG 16 etc are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus then it is a wrong inference. The fault lies with the person making the inference and not with the text of Vatican Council II.-Lionel Andrades
Did Vatican Council make a factual error ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/did-vatican-council-make-factual-error.html
Did Pope Pius XII make a mistake ? http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/did-pope-pius-xii-make-mistake.html#links
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment