The sedevacantists have put out a video on Youtube titled SSPX REJECTS SALVATION DOGMA and none of the SSPX websites have responded.They cannot. Since the SSPX does assume there is explicit known-to-us cases of persons saved, who are exceptions to the salvation dogma.
They cannot respond to the video.Since they do assume implicit salvation is explicit and an exception to the dogma. They assume implicit salvation is explicit.So it follows that Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma on salvation and the Syllabus of Errors.
They are now awaiting excommunication N.2 since no one on their websites says that Vatican Council II is in accord with the SSPX position on other religions. Ad Gentes 7 supports the salvation dogma and LG 16 etc are not known exceptions but the websites do not mention it. Why? Since Lumen Gentium 16 is a known exception for the SSPX even though they cannot name any one saved in invincible ignorance or a good conscience in 2012.
Their websites should be discussing this issue. They cannot - since they have no answer. How can they deny the sedevacantist charge on the video ?
If they realized that the baptism of desire and invincible are never inherently explicit for us and that they are explicit only for God, they could issue a clarification.
They could have said that the SSPX General Chapter meeting stated 'we reaffirm our faith in the Roman Catholic Church, the unique Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation nor possibility to find the means leading to salvation'
So there is no known possibility of salvation outside the Church and every one needs to convert into the Church (Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441).They need to convert with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.(Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II).
Since there are no known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus if a non Catholic is saved in another religion, it does not contradict the literal interpretation of the dogma. Only if one assumes that these cases are explicit would it be an exception to the literal intepretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Also, those who are saved in another religion are saved through Jesus and the Church and they could also be saved with the baptism of water and Catholic Faith, if God sends a preacher to them. We don't know.Either way, they are irrelevant to the dogma, these cases do not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction .They are implicit.
So when Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre said that a non Catholic can be saved in another religion he was speaking of a possibility and not a known reality.A possibility is not a reality in 2012.
It is the sedevantists who have the problem when they assume that the baptism of desire is explicit and known to us. So they reject the baptism of desire of the Council of Trent.
Similarly the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Fr. Leonard Feeney's communities, assume that Vatican Council II contradicts the literal interpretation of the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney since for them implicit desire, invincible ignorance etc are explicit.
The SSPX priests Fr. Peter Scott and Francois Laisney assume implicit desire etc is explicit for us, i.e there is an explicit implicit desire. So they, unlike the MHFM accept it .They accept an explicit baptism of desire etc and assume that it contradicts extra ecclesiam nulla salus or is an exception to the dogma.
So they cannot respond to the sedevantist video since like the MHFM they assume that the baptism of desire etc is explicit. The difference is that the sedevantists reject the baptism of desire since they believe it is explicit while the SSPX accept the baptism of desire and also assume it is explicit.
So the MHFM claim that the SSPX is heretical because they reject the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus by accepting explicit baptism of desire etc. So it is no surprise that the MHFM also rejects Vatican Council since they are using the same false premise of being able to see the dead saved with the baptism of desire who are defacto, known exceptions on earth to the dogma.
When the Church Councils defined the dogma they were aware of implicit desire and invincible ignorance mentioned by the Church Fathers and they knew that it does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction.
The Dimond brothers in the video believe it would contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction since for them implicit desire etc is always explicit.
The traditionalists unaware of this error of the explicit implicit baptism of desire and invincible ignorance, seeds of the word and imperfect communion reject Vatican Council II when the fault is really with them and not the Council.-Lionel Andrades
SEDEVACANTIST VIDEO ASSUMES THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE ETC IS EXPLICIT FOR US
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment