MY APPROACH
In a previous blog post I stated that I affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).I then affirm it in agreement with Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14). I say that EENS and Vatican Council II say all need to formally enter the Church for salvation ( with faith and baptism ).There are no exceptions. This is the general rule, this is the de fide teaching.
Then I say that I personally I do not know of any one saved with the baptism of desire or blood, with or without the baptism of water. So there are no known exceptions to the dogma for me in 2016.
The baptism of desire is a hypothetical case. For it to be an exception or relevant to EENS it would have to be explicit. Zero cases of something are not exceptions to EENS says the apologist John Martignoni.
So the bottom line is that there is no known salvation outside the Church for me. I cannot meet someone saved without the baptism of water.This is physically impossible and so no one in the past could also have known of a case of someone saved outside the Church.
So this is my basic position. Then I wait for the questions to come.1
Here is Bishop Bernard Fellay saying Lumen Gentium 8 recognises the presence of "salvific elements" in non -Catholic Christian communities. 2
I affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the 16th century missionaries, Fr. Leonard Feeney and the Church Councils.I personally do not know of any salvific elements in non-Catholic Christian communities.No one can know. So there is nothing in LG 8 to contradict the dogma EENS for me.
____________________________
Bishop Fellay then states the decree on ecumenism goes even further, adding that “the Spirit of Christ does not refrain from using these churches and communities as means of salvation, which derive their efficacy from the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.” (UR, 3)
I affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), with the strict interpretation of the Church known for centuries.I personally do not know of any non-Catholic Christian who will be saved or is saved outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church. None of us can know of any one saved 'in churches and communities' and not in the Catholic Church.We cannot know of an explicit case of someone saved outside the Church, who has been saved by 'churches and communities' which 'derive there efficacy from the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church'.So UR 3 would refer to a hypothetical case for us which could only be known to God.So UR 3 cannot be an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which I affirm.
___________________________
Bishop Fellay states such statements are irreconcilable with the dogma “No salvation outside of the Church,” which was reaffirmed by a Letter of the Holy Office on August 8, 1949
I affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the first part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.The second part of the Letter of the Holy Office contradicts the first part.The second part assumes hypothetical cases are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus , as it was known to the 16th century missionaries and Fr. Leonard Feeney.
So the Letter, approved by the magisterium, made an objective mistake. The baptism of desire and blood, with or without the baptism of water, cannot be explicit for us. So it cannot be an exception to the teaching on there being exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church.
The first part of the Letter is based on the traditional theology of Feeneyism ( there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS). The second part is an innovation. It is based on the new theology of Cushingism( there are known exceptions to the dogma EENS).
Bishop Fellay is a Cushingite.He uses this same irrational approach in the interpretation of LG 8 and UR 3. He mixes up what is invisible as being visible, what is implicit as being explicit.He interprets Vatican Council II with an innovation and is not aware of it.
The fault is not there with Vatican Council II. I interpret LG 8 and UR 3 as being hypothetical. There is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
-Lionel Andrades
1.
My Approach : apologetics
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/my-approach-apologetics.html
2.
The Church of Christ is present and active as such, that is, as the unique ark of salvation, only where the Vicar of Christ is present. The Mystical Body of which he is the visible head is strictly identical to the Roman Catholic Church.
The same declaration (LG, 8) also recognizes the presence of “salvific elements” in non-Catholic Christian communities. The decree on ecumenism goes even further, adding that “the Spirit of Christ does not refrain from using these churches and communities as means of salvation, which derive their efficacy from the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.” (UR, 3)
Such statements are irreconcilable with the dogma “No salvation outside of the Church,” which was reaffirmed by a Letter of the Holy Office on August 8, 1949.
http://www.dici.org/en/documents/letter-to-friends-and-benefactors-no-82/
___________________________________________
___________________________________________
April 23-Sept.11,2014 - still no clarification from the SSPX
April 13-August 24,2014 and still no correction or clarification from Bishop Bernard Fellay
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment