Sunday, October 18, 2015

Accepting Vatican Council II should no more be a problem for the SSPX : they need to avoid the error in the Baltimore Catechism

Immagine correlata321. How can those be saved who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism?
Those who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism can be saved through what is called baptism of blood or baptism of desire.
322. How does an unbaptized person receive the baptism of blood?

An unbaptized person receives the baptism of blood when he suffers martyrdom for the faith of Christ.
Greater love than this no one has, that one lay down his life for his friends. (John 15:13)
323. How does an unbaptized person receive the baptism of desire?
An unbaptized person receives the baptism of desire when he loves God above all things and desires to do all that is necessary for his salvation. - Baptism. Lesson 24 from the Baltimore Cathechism
Immagine correlata
What if the SSPX says there is a mistake in the Baltimore Catechism (quoted above) and so they are going to evaluate  their position on Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents?
 For example:
Immagine correlata

There are no physical  cases of the 'baptism of desire'(BOD) and 'baptism of blood'(BOB)  as there are of the baptism of water.The baptism of water can be seen physically.
We cannot give anyone the BOD or BOB as we can give someone the baptism of water.
 So BOD and BOB are not known baptisms as is the baptism of water.
We do not even know of a BOD and BOB case over the last 100 years, who is in Heaven without the baptism of water.We can speculate but cannot see or know such case.
So BOD and BOB, if they exist and when they exist, are known only to God, they are zero cases in our reality.So in the sense that they are not explicit, we cannot call them baptisms like the baptism of water.
 They are not practical, defacto exceptions to all needing the baptism of water in the Church, for salvation.
They are not exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
Immagine correlata
Immagine correlata
They are hypothetical cases for us and these theoretical cases, we can speculate with reason and tradition, would be followed by the baptism of water.
So the Baltimore Catechism made an empirical mistake when it suggested that there was more than one baptism. There was alsi a mistake when  implicit desire for the baptism of water and the those who are martyred,were placed  in the section on Baptism and its necessity. It was wrong to infer that there were known exceptions to all needing the baptism of water.
Immagine correlata
 So the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney also made a mistake in assuming that BOD, BOB and being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I) were exceptions to the dogma on EENS.The Letter of the Holy Office(CDF)  should not have criticized Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.Since for us humans there cannot be any known exception to the dogma EENS.The Magisterium made a mistake in 1949 as they did in 1808 when the Baltimore Catechism was issued.The same mistake was repeated in the Catechism of Pope Pius X.
Immagine correlata
So in Vatican Council II LG 16( saved in invincible ignorance), UR 3 ( saved with imperfect communion with the Church), AG 11 ( seeds of the Word), NA 2 ( a ray of that Truth) are not explicit for us in 2015 and so are not exceptions to EENS.They are not exceptions to the Feeneyite version of the dogma on salvation.Since they refer to zero cases in our reality.They do not contradict the old ecclesiology, since they are not examples of salvation outside the Church.
There is nothing in Vatican  Council II to contradict the dogma EENS  according to Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441.
Immagine correlata
Cantate Domino, one of the three Church Councils which defined  extra ecclesiam nulla salus,and which Pope Pius XII called an 'infallible teaching', says all non Christians and non-Catholics  need to formally enter the Church to avoid the fires of Hell.

So after Vatican Council II we still have the ecclesiology of Cantate Dominio.There are no known exceptions to the traditional teaching on other religions and Christian communities.
Hindus, Buddhists, Jews and  Muslims need to convert formally into the Catholic Church for salvation, as also, Protestants, Orthodox Christians, Pentecostals and the evangelical communities.
Immagine correlata
So accepting Vatican Council II should no more be a problem for the SSPX. They need to identify the error in the Baltimore Catechism and be aware of it in other magisterial documents, like Redemptoris Missio, Dominus Iesus, Catechism of the Catholic Church etc, and then avoid it.
Now even the SSPX Resistance can ask Rome to correct the error and this will be a way the Vatican can come back to Tradition, to the old ecclesiology, to 'eternal Rome'.
Bishop Bernard Fellay and Bishop Richard Williamson could ask Cardinal Gerhard Muller and Archbishop Augustine Di Noia, to interpret Vatican Council II with LG 16 etc referring  to invisible for us and not visible cases. This would be rational and traditional. It would have the hermeneutic of continuity.
Bishop Williamson has said that they will return to Rome only after Rome returns to Tradition. Rome can now accept the old ecclesiology along with Vatican Council II, and so can the SSPX.
-Lionel Andrades