Please don't give him an article which infers that there are known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus

 

 

"Extra ecclesiam nulla salus" - What does it mean?

I am looking for a good article to post on this subject, primarily because we have a reader who seems eager to address the issue. Any suggestions?

I see Catholicism.org has a whole list of linked articles on the issue; Farley Clinton has an article entitled "The Leonard Feeney Quarrel and Pius IX on Invincible Ignorance" (CatholicCulture.org) that is fairly lengthy. Googling "Feeney" and "invincible ignorance" brings up an SSPX article roundly criticizing Fr. Feeney's book, The Bread of Life (1952) as contradicting Church teaching. Here are some more historical details concerning Abp Cushing and the Holy Office from EWTN. The bottom line, as far as I can see, has to do with how "Extra ecclesiam nulla salus" is meant to be understood. Feeney (excommunicated in 1953) apparently held that original sin is wiped away only by the character imprinted on the soul by Baptism. Does this mean nobody under the Old Covenant (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses) is to be found among the saved? Absurd. So then, what does the statement mean? Have at it, if any of you are interested. Only, please observe the rules of common sense etiquette. Stick to the subject. No ad hominems or rudeness. No "carpet bombing" of copied text into the combox. No unwarranted inferences from cited sources casting aspersion on anyone. Etc. Etc. Etc.  http://pblosser.blogspot.it/

Lionel:

I see Catholicism.org has a whole list of linked articles on the issue

 

For Catholicism.org LG 16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance) is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So they infer that these cases are known and explicit in our times to be exceptions.The St. Benedict Centers still cannot say that LG 16,LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc do not contradict 'the rigorist interpretation' of the dogma according to  Fr.Leonard Feeney.

 

; Farley Clinton has an article entitled "The Leonard Feeney Quarrel and Pius IX on Invincible Ignorance" (CatholicCulture.org) that is fairly lengthy.

 

Lionel:

For Jeff Mirus at Catholic Culture LG 16 ( invincible ignorance) is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The dogma is no more valid. In other words he can see and know persons in 2014 saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water. So these 'visible' cases oppose the traditional teaching on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. Again we have the irrational inference.They infer that the dead now in Heaven are visible.Then they postulate this as an exception to Fr.Leonard Feeney.

 

  Googling "Feeney" and "invincible ignorance" brings up an SSPX article roundly criticizing Fr. Feeney's book, The Bread of Life (1952) as contradicting Church teaching.

Lionel:

When I ask Louis Tofari the SSPX spokesman in the USA to answer two questions he will not. He will say that the SSPX rejects Feeneyism ( whatever that means to him) or that the SSPX accepts all what the Church teaches on this issue.He has never answered these two questions.

 

TWO QUESTIONS

1) Do we personally know the dead now saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc,can we see them, are they physically visible to us in 2014 ?

2) Since we do not know any of these cases, in real life, they are not visible for us, there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, or Ad Gentes 7 which states 'all' need 'faith and baptism' for salvation ?    Is the answer YES or NO?

 Here are some more historical details concerning Abp Cushing and the Holy Office from EWTN. The bottom line, as far as I can see, has to do with how "Extra ecclesiam nulla salus" is meant to be understood.

Lionel:

The Holy Office and Cardinal Cushing held that there were known exceptions to the tradtional interpretation of the dogma. This was an 'historical exclusive' for the Letter of the Holy Office. Neither does Mystici Corporis or the Council of Trent claim that the baptism of desire referred to visible in the flesh cases and so was an exception to the dogma. There is no historical precedent before 1949.This inference was first made at Boston. Since then this irrationality has been incorporated in Magisterial documents including the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Dominus Iesus, Ut Unum Sint etc.

 

  Feeney (excommunicated in 1953) apparently held that original sin is wiped away only by the character imprinted on the soul by Baptism.

Lionel:

Yes only by the baptism of water.He is supported in Ad Gentes 7 and CCC 1257 ( in part).He is referring to defacto cases in the present times. A person could be saved with the baptism of desire.It would by hypothetical for us. There are no defacto, known cases. So the baptism of desire is not an exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.

 

  Does this mean nobody under the Old Covenant (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses) is to be found among the saved? Absurd.

Lionel:

They went to Heaven after the Resurrection of the Promised Jewish Messiah. Before that they had to wait in Abraham's bosom, as it was termed.

 

  So then, what does the statement mean? 

Lionel:

It means what it has meant for centuries-  before 1949.Check out the Church Councils, popes and saints.

 

Have at it, if any of you are interested. Only, please observe the rules of common sense etiquette. Stick to the subject. No ad hominems or rudeness. No "carpet bombing" of copied text into the combox. No unwarranted inferences from cited sources casting aspersion on anyone. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Lionel:

And also, please, no suggesting that the baptism of desire is relevant or an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

-Lionel Andrades