Bishop Richard Williams says one may always exceptionally hope for the salvation of non Catholics. Normally no.
So exceptionally yes. Normally no (11:18).
We cannot name anyone explicitly who is saved so everyone with no exception needs to enter the church. Practically there no known exceptions. Theoretically also there are no known exceptions. We cannot name someone saved this year or ever, in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire.
When he says a non Catholic can be saved he is assuming he can see such a case in person, it is known to him ?He could have said clearly that all need to enter the church for salvation and that there are no exceptions.
That there can be some saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire is irrelevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or Vatican Council II (AG 7).
Since he believes this possibility, unknown to us, is not irrelevant but real he assumes Lumen Gentium 16 etc contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. He assumes it is also referring to ‘an exception’ to the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX. So he condemns Vatican Council II as modernist.
The fault is not with Vatican Council II which is traditional (AG 7) but in assuming that there are exceptions (actually or potentially) to all people needing to convert into the Church for salvation.
Vatican Council II does not state that we know even one single such case since it is humanly impossible.
So if the exceptions can never be explicit for the bishop which exceptions are there ? So why had he to mention the exceptions? Since for him the exceptions are real? Does he think we can know the exceptions?In his mind the exceptions are real so they contradict the Syllabus of Errors which he was reading out. (Video part 13).
The SSPX communique (July 19, 2012) indicates that the Society of St.Pius X are in a position to say there are no exceptions; there is no contradiction to the Syllabus and Vatican Council II.Normally there are no exceptions.
The bishop has made a doctrinal error by assuming that exceptions are real and can be exceptions to the Syllabus and the dogma. This is the mistake of those who detract Fr. Leonard Feeney.
If the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 suggests there are exceptions to the dogma then it is a doctrinal error. Faith is not opposed to reason. Reason tells us that we do not know any ‘exception’ for it to be an exception to the dogma or the Syllabus.
The Church Fathers did not say those saved in invincible ignorance etc were exceptions to the dogma. They just mentioned it as a possibility known to God. They do not say these cases are explicit.Also in the the thrice defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, no exception is mentioned by the three Church Councils.
When the bishop refers to the exceptions and the ‘normal’ way it is a signal that he considers the dead visible. i.e. he can see the dead saved in invincible ignorance etc for them to be explicit exceptions to the dogma and the Syllabus of Errors and the 'normal way'.
If there are exceptions then Ad Gentes 7 is also wrong according to Bishop Williamson, since it says all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation.
Theoretically we cannot name any exceptions but theoretically we can assume there are exceptions.
To assume that there are particular exceptions to the defined dogma is heresy. It is also rejecting Vatican Council II (AG 7).
So when Vatican II refers to invincible ignorance and a good conscience (LG 16 etc) it is only acknowledging there can be persons saved with implicit desire or invincible ignorance and not that they are exceptions.
-Lionel Andrades
August 4, 2012
First Saturday.
-Lionel Andrades
August 4, 2012
First Saturday.
Posts
2 comments:
Laying aside Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood and Invincible Ignorance for a moment, the incalculable harm that was done to the Catholic Church in the last sixty plus years was specifically done by the failure to teach 'No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church' to Catholics, Non Catholics and Jews etc. The implicit possibilities if BOD, BOB and IG should have and still should be left in the hands of God. All Clerics and Catholics are held accountable to teach the faith. We have disappointed Jesus beyond words in this regard. Enough !
Hugs and kisses are commendable and extremely important but ONLY when accompanied with truth, otherwise they may appear and actually imply that Catholics fully accept, condone or turn a blind eye to the necessary teaching of Catholic doctrine through uncompromised truth in Charity.
Many have spent countless years and in some cases lifetimes NOT teaching the Catholic faith and defending it in the spirit of conciliar thinking.
Post a Comment