Chris Ferrara and the SSPX bishops use the irrationality of the Letter ( hypothetical-objective exceptions) to interpret Vatican Council II with the hermeneutic of rupture

 Comment from The Remnant Newspaper.

March 17, 2016

Benedict Breaks His Silence... with another Leaky Lifeboat 

Written by  Christopher A. Ferrara

Christopher A. Ferrara writes:

Not one of those statements says one can be saved without Christian faith.

Lionel: However the Letter of the Holy Office does suggest that one could be saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) and with the baptism of desire (BOD)  both without the baptism of water  and then it relates it to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).

How can I.I and BOD be related to EENS?  They are both invisible for us.There is no connection between I.I, BOD and EENS. Since I.I and BOD refer to theoretical cases.

LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949 MISTAKES

Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing (who is not in invincible ignorance, since those cases it is assumed refer to objective persons who will be saved and so are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.

Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.

In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (, nn. 797, 807).

The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.

However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.

These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire...

Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition "in which they cannot be sure of their salvation" since "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church" (AAS, 1. c., p. 243). With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire...-Letter of the Holy Office 1949

HYPOTHETICAL CASES ARE CONSIDERED EXPLICIT

'...the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing.'

'...the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation' are known only to God ,  and if they ' can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing.', we would not know of any such case. So it cannot be relevant or an exception to EENs. So why did they have to metion it in the Letter? Since they wrongly assumed these were objective cases.They were explicit exceptions for the magisterium.

Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing. This is a reference to a hypothetical  case so why is it mentioned here with reference to EENS ? We have here the beginning of 'a development of dogma' based on alleged known salvation outside the Church.Hypothetical cases are considered objectively known. Then it is inferred that these hypothetical cases are explicit exceptions to EENS.

'However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire,...' So what if God accepts also an implicit desire ? It is an unknown case for us. So what connection does it have with EENS?.

'those who "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation...O.K this is theoretical speculation. A lot of goodwill.But what's it doing in this Letter? Is this not a confusion of what is invisible as being invisible, what is speculative as being objective ?

With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire...He reproves those who exclude defacto, known, objective cases of person saved by implicit desire? Why is implicit desire mentioned here when it has no connection with EENS since there are no physically known cases, for it to be an exception to EENS.

Christopher A. Ferrara writes:

 Pius X says only that they are "on the way of salvation." But they need FAITH to be saved. That is why the Holy Office said supernatural faith, not just good faith and good behavior, are necessary for salvation. So, what kind of faith do these people have, given that faith is an infused grace that brings acceptance of propositions, not some vague religious sense?

"I think this is what Benedict means when he speaks of an evolution of dogma."

Lionel: He means I.I and BOD refer to objective cases and so they are exceptions to EENS. Similarly LG 16 ( invincible ignorance) is an exception to EENS for him. So there is 'a development of the dogma' for him.

_________________________

Christopher A. Ferrara writes:

No, that is NOT what he means. He means just what he said: that the missionaries' conviction that souls would be lost without faith and baptism was "definitively abandoned" after Vatican II because that conviction does not provide "a real answer to the question of human existence" given the number of pagans in the world. So we need some theory of how they can be saved without Christian faith.

We need no such theory, nor is any such theory possible. The Magisterium has held nothing more than that those who are not formal members of the Church through no fault of their own can be joined to her in ways known only to God, but that joinder MUST involve supernatural faith, not just being a good egg.

Lionel: Christopher Ferrara has not commented ever on the error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.Nor has he addressed the issue of this particular error resulting in two interpretations of Vatican Council II. One is with the hermeneutic of continuity and the other with the hermeneutic of rupture.Chris Ferrara and the SSPX bishops use the irrationality of the Letter ( hypothetical-objective exceptions) to interpret Vatican Council II with the hermeneutic of rupture. Then they reject Vatican Council II in which LG 16 refers to known exceptions to EENS. It is the same reasoning used by Pope Benedict.

For me there are no hypothetical cases being objective. So Vatican Council II does not contradict EENS or the Syllabus of Errors. There is a hermeneutic of continuity.

-Lionel Andrades

http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/2374-benedict-breaks-his-silence-with-another-leaky-lifeboat