_______________________________
From Musings of a Pertinacious Papist, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus What does it mean?
Tradical
I quickly checked the references that Catholicism made and noted that there appears to be a confirmation bias at work.
Lionel:
Usually the common bias with the SSPX and the St.Benedict Centers, is asuming hypothetical cases are defacto exceptions to the dogma.
This was the original error of the Holy Office and Cardinal Cushing. They inferred that the baptism of desire was known and visible in personal cases to be exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney. In other words they could see the dead on earth.
_________________________________
...But this is all rather unnecessary.
The question appears to be simply: Can an unbaptized person achieve salvation?
Lionel:
Please be aware that this is a hypothetical question. So do not asume it refers to a defacto case and posit is against the dogma.
______________________________________
Well we know from the Council of Trent that a desire of baptism is also sufficient.
Lionel:
Again the Council of Trent only referred to implicit desire/baptism of desire. It did not state that these cases are known and visible to us, defacto, or that they are exceptions to the dogma. So please do not make this inference and then suggest that the Council of Trent say this.
_____________________________________
So fundamentally, someone who is not sacramentally baptised can achieve a state of grace and if this is maintained until death, they will be saved.
Lionel:
O.K. Hypothetically.
_____________________________________
Now, as to the matter of faith, taking up the thread above - St. Thomas makes distinctions between what degree of knowledge or 'content of Faith' is required for various classes of people.
For example a Bishop must have a higher content than a Priest, who must have a higher degree of explicit Faith than a lay-person. There are lesser requirements for the unbaptized.
Lionel:
Fine. But please do not infer, though, that these cases are personally known to us.
And if they are not personally known to us how can they be relevant to the dogma?
__________________________________
So at the extreme end, the minimum requirement for belief is as stated in the letter to Archbishop Cushing, which has basically been repeated in the Second Vatican Council.
Lionel:
Cushingism assumes that hypothetical cases are defacto exceptions to the dogma.
______________________________
In this case, since it is not at variance with how the Church has understood the dogma pre-conciliarly and even conciliarly, it is (imo) somewhat pointless to argue the point.Lionel:
Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as interpreted by Fr.Leonard Feeney, unless, you are using Cushingism in the interpretation. Most people, liberals and traditionalists, are doing just this.
-Lionel AndradesI quickly checked the references that Catholicism made and noted that there appears to be a confirmation bias at work.
Lionel:
Usually the common bias with the SSPX and the St.Benedict Centers, is asuming hypothetical cases are defacto exceptions to the dogma.
This was the original error of the Holy Office and Cardinal Cushing. They inferred that the baptism of desire was known and visible in personal cases to be exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney. In other words they could see the dead on earth.
_________________________________
...But this is all rather unnecessary.
The question appears to be simply: Can an unbaptized person achieve salvation?
Lionel:
Please be aware that this is a hypothetical question. So do not asume it refers to a defacto case and posit is against the dogma.
______________________________________
Well we know from the Council of Trent that a desire of baptism is also sufficient.
Lionel:
Again the Council of Trent only referred to implicit desire/baptism of desire. It did not state that these cases are known and visible to us, defacto, or that they are exceptions to the dogma. So please do not make this inference and then suggest that the Council of Trent say this.
_____________________________________
So fundamentally, someone who is not sacramentally baptised can achieve a state of grace and if this is maintained until death, they will be saved.
Lionel:
O.K. Hypothetically.
_____________________________________
Now, as to the matter of faith, taking up the thread above - St. Thomas makes distinctions between what degree of knowledge or 'content of Faith' is required for various classes of people.
For example a Bishop must have a higher content than a Priest, who must have a higher degree of explicit Faith than a lay-person. There are lesser requirements for the unbaptized.
Lionel:
Fine. But please do not infer, though, that these cases are personally known to us.
And if they are not personally known to us how can they be relevant to the dogma?
__________________________________
So at the extreme end, the minimum requirement for belief is as stated in the letter to Archbishop Cushing, which has basically been repeated in the Second Vatican Council.
Lionel:
Cushingism assumes that hypothetical cases are defacto exceptions to the dogma.
______________________________
In this case, since it is not at variance with how the Church has understood the dogma pre-conciliarly and even conciliarly, it is (imo) somewhat pointless to argue the point.Lionel:
Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as interpreted by Fr.Leonard Feeney, unless, you are using Cushingism in the interpretation. Most people, liberals and traditionalists, are doing just this.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6312447&postID=3181870308829741462
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment