Lionel AndradesYour comment is awaiting moderation.
Michael B Rooke
It might be noted
INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION
CHRISTIANITY AND THE WORLD RELIGIONS
(1997)
PRELIMINARY NOTE
The study of the theme “Christianity and the World Religions” was adopted for study by a large majority of the members of the International Theological Commission. …..The present text was approved “in forma specifica” by vote of the commission on 30 September 1996 and was submitted to its president, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who has given his approval for its publication.
Lionel:
They unknowingly used the Cushing-Jesuit Factual Error.
8. The fundamental question is this: Do religions mediate salvation to their members? There are those who give a negative reply to this question; even more, some do not even see any sense in raising it. Others give an affirmative response, which in turn gives rise to other questions: Are such mediations of salvation autonomous or do they convey the salvation of Jesus Christ? It is a question therefore of defining the status of Christianity and of religions as sociocultural realities in their relation to human salvation. This question should not be confused with that of the salvation of individuals, Christian or otherwise. Due account has not always been taken of this distinction.
Lionel:
We need to keep Vatican Council II (AG 7) before us. It says all need faith and baptism. We also need to keep the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Catechism of Pope Pius X before us.Ad Gentes 7 is placed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church under the title Outside the Church there is no salvation.
We do not know any case in 2014 which contradicts this traditional teaching.So Lumen Gentium (16), Unitatis Redintigratio (3), Nostra Aetate (2)etc cannot be exceptions to the magisterial documents cited here.
9. Many attempts have been made to classify the different theological positions adopted toward this problem. Let us see some of these classifications: Christ against religions, in religions, above religions, beside religions. An ecclesiocentric universe or exclusive Christology; a Christocentric universe or inclusive Christology; a theocentric universe with a normative Christology; a theocentric universe with a non-normative Christology. Some theologians adopt the tripartite division exclusivism, inclusivism, pluralism, which is seen as parallel to another: ecclesiocentrism, Christocentrism, theocentrism. Given that we have to choose one of these classifications in order to continue our reflection, we will follow the latter, even though we might complement it with the others if necessary.
10. Exclusivist ecclesiocentrism—the fruit of a specific theological system or of a mistaken understanding of the phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus—is no longer defended by Catholic theologians after the clear statements of Pius XII and Vatican Council II on the possibility of salvation for those who do not belong visibly to the Church (cf, e.g., LG 16; GS 22).
Lionel:
Here it is assumed that implicit desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are explicit,visble to us exceptions to the literal nterpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. We have the Cushing-Jesuit Factual Error here. It is assumed that the the baptism of desire etc is visible and this was the view of Pope Pius XII. In other words the pope did not know that we do not know of any such case and so it cannot be an exception to Tradition.
True there is ‘a possibility of salvation for those who do not belong visibly to the Church eg.G 16 etc) but these are hypothetical cases for us, only possibility. They are not defacto known in the present times so how can they be exceptions to traditional exclusivist ecclesiocentrism? To assume that the dead-saved are exceptions is an objective error.
11. Christocentrism accepts that salvation may occur in religions, but it denies them any autonomy in salvation on account of the uniqueness and universality of the salvation that comes from Jesus Christ. This position is undoubtedly the one most commonly held by Catholic theologians, even though there are differences among them. It attempts to reconcile the universal salvific will of God with the fact that all find their fulfillment as human beings within a cultural tradition that has in the corresponding religion its highest expression and its ultimate foundation.
Lionel:
The reference is to liberal theologians some in dissent, Fr.John Hicks etc.
66. In his encyclical Mystici Corporis, Pius XII addresses the question, How are those who attain salvation outside visible communion with the Church related to her? He says that they are oriented to the mystical body of Christ by a yearning and desire of which they are not aware (DS 3821).
Lionel:
In Mystici Corporis Pope Pius XII does not say that these cases are explicit for us, visible to the naked eye for them to be exceptions extra ecclesiam nulla salus.These cases could exist and being implicit for us are compatible with the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The opposition of the American Jesuit Leonard Feeney, who insisted on the exclusivist interpretation of the expression extra ecclesiam nulla solus, afforded the occasion for the letter of the Holy Office, dated 8 August ,1949, to the archbishop of Boston, which rejected Feeney s interpretation and clarified the teaching of Pius XII.
Lionel:
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 supported Fr.Leonard Feeney on doctrine/dogma. It referred to ‘the dogma’ the ‘infallible teaching’. The text of the dogma does not mention any exceptions. It faulted Fr.Leonard Feeney for disobedience/discipline and not for heresy.
If he was condemned for heresy it would mean that the Holy Office had made an objective mistake assuming there are known exceptions to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
The letter distinguishes between the necessity of belonging to the Church for salvation (necessitas praecepti) and the necessity of the indispensable means of salvation (intrinseca necessitas); in relationship to the latter, the Church is a general help for salvation (DS 3867—69). In the case of invincible ignorance the implicit desire of belonging to the Church suffices; this desire will always be present when a man aspires to conform his will to that of God (DS 3870). But faith, in the sense of Hebrews 11:6, and love are always necessary with intrinsic necessity (DS 3872).
Lionel:
‘The letter distinguishes between the necessity of belonging to the Church for salvation (necessitas praecepti) and the necessity of the indispensable means of salvation (intrinseca necessitas)..’
Either way it would be known only to God. Are you implying that this is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was traditionally known?
67. Vatican Council II makes its own the expression extra ecclesiam nulla salus. But in using it the council explicitly directs itself to Catholics and limits its validity to those who know the necessity of the Church for salvation. The council holds that the affirmation is based on the necessity of faith and of baptism affirmed by Christ (LG 14). In this way the council aligned itself in continuity with the teaching of Pius XII, but emphasized more clearly the original parenthentical character of this expression.
Lionel:
‘those who know the necessity of the Church for salvation’ and those in invincible ignorance are known only to God.We do not know any such case in 2014. Are you implying that this is an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma by Fr.Leonard Feeney ?
In this way the council aligned itself in continuity with the teaching of Pius XII…,
Lionel:
Yes. Vatican Council II is in accord with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known to the saints Robert Bellarmine, St.Francis Xavier, St.Francis of Assisi, St.Anthony Marie Clare, St.Maximillian Kolbe …