The good bishop needs to revisit the dogma of extra ecclesiam nulla salus

There have been some interesting comments on Rorate Caeli on the post For the record: the Trinity Sunday sermon of Bishop Tissier de Mallerais"

beng said...

Seriously?!

He's equating SSPX with St. Basil and the current Church with the pneumatomachian??!

Dear bishop. There's a huge difference. St. Basil was IN the Church and the pneumatomachians were OUTSIDE the Church.

But SSPX now is OUTSIDE the Church and the current Church, with all its chaff, is THE CHURCH.

The good bishop needs to revisit the dogma of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Revist the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?

Even if he did revisit it alongwith the other bishops they would still assume that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are known to us in the present times. So they are explicit exceptions to the dogma.

JMR said...

In a Church that no longer upholds the teaching that "outside the Church there is no Salvation" why does it matter who is in and who is outside the Church. It is the SSPX that still hold that teaching.

It is the SSPX that still holds the teaching?

How can they still hold the teaching when they believe that there are defacto, explcit known exceptions to the dogma.

If they realized that we do not know these cases on earth then it would mean they accept the literal interpretation of the dogma.

Presently they assume possibilities (invincible ignorance, baptism of desire etc) are realities in the present time.

When they accept the literal interpretation of the dogma they can then affim the Faith with respect to religious liberty.

Since the SSPX is confused on this subject religious liberty in Vatican Council II seems confusing.

Carl said:

When did the Second Vatican Council deny Christ the King? It explicitly said, "[The Council] leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ" (DH 1). Does that sound like "the denial of Christ the King, the refusal of Christ the King"? The good bishop harms the mission of the Society and the Church with such histrionics.

The problem with the Council isn't that it denies Christ the King, but that it uses a number of expressions that can be manipulated to justify just about anything on a practical level. It issues a blank check for making up new religions and calling them "Catholic." The Society is right rely on tradition and to condemn these new religions and is also right to criticise the Council for issuing these blank checks. But it is wrong (and worthy of ridicule) to accuse the Second Vatican Council of heresies similar to Arianism, Nestorianism and Pneumatomachianism.

I agree with the Bishop when he says "let us not think that because Rome is offering us today an agreement, an official position in the Church, that we should give up proclaiming these strong truths." There is no reason why official recognition should change the society. What concerns me is the gross lack of clarity in understanding the relationship between the AMBIGUITY of the Council and the ERROR that practically procedes from this ambiguity.

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais cannot find any textual justification for his absolutely absurd claim that the Second Vatican Council denies and refuses Christ the King. Searching the conciliar texts one finds not a denial of the social reign of Jesus Christ, but rather a disturbing absence of the concept. By definition, it cannot be affirmed or denied if it is never mentioned. That it is not mentioned is problem enough without making false claims of a denial.

New Catholic said...

Carl, that is a very pertinent observation. We dislike the Second Vatican Council for many reasons, but Christ the King and the concept of the Kingship of Christ are repeated almost ad nauseam in several of its documents. One may say that specific matters mentioned at some of the documents (for instance, interreligious dialogue) are themselves responsible for opening the gate to disdain for this concept, but it is repeated again and again there, we must admit in all honesty.

If they would revisit the dogma and realize that there is implicit and explicit baptism of desire then they could revisit Vatican Council II.

-Lionel Andrades 
 
Monday, June 11, 2012
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais the fourth heresy is the explicit known to us baptism of desire: this is the SSPX error in interpreting the Council and other magisterial documents
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/06/bishop-tissier-de-mallerais-fourth.html