Tuesday, July 3, 2012

SSPX would be protesting Augustine Di Noia’s statement on extra ecclesiam nulla salus - if they understood it!

When speaking about the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus the Vice President of Ecclesia Dei said that he knew saintly Protestants, implying that they will be saved, he knows they will be saved, even though they are not in the Catholic Church.

According to Protestant theology just believing  in Jesus is enough for salvation.According to Catholics belief in Jesus is necessary but so also are the moral teachings of the Gospel, they need to be lived, since a mortal sin un-Confessed in the Sacrament of Reconciliation can lead to Hell- even if one believes in Jesus or is a Catholic. For Catholics it is necessary to be a member of the Catholic Church and to live the Gospel within the Catholic Church.

Only Jesus can judge if Di Noia’s ‘saintly Lutherans and Anglicans' are exceptions. The Catholic  Church however teaches in its documents, and not through the Vatican Curia, that  Protestants are on the way to Hell because they do not have access to the Sacraments in the Catholic Church. They do not have Catholic Faith (AG 7). Di Noia cannot claim that any Protestant he knows is saved or will be saved. He cannot say that for himself.

He said ‘the Council did say there are elements of grace in other religions, and I don’t think that should be retracted.’ It should not be retracted since it is not in conflict with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Neither does it contradict AG 7.

LG 8 mentions ‘elements of sanctification in other religions’ but LG 8 does not say that these cases are known to us, or are the ordinary means of salvation or that they contradict the literal interpretation of the dogma or that they contradict AG 7 which says all need Catholic faith and the baptism of water for salvation.

The Archbishop is assuming that a non Catholic can be saved with ‘elements of sanctification’ and that he personally knows these cases.Here is the error.

His error is at the basis of the Society of St. Pius X’s rejection of Vatican Council II. Since for them Vatican Council II (LG 8, LG 16) are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They are ‘known’ exceptions. So they reject Vatican Council II, which for them, has changed the traditional teaching on other religions and ecumenism.

Augustine Di Noia, Luiz Ladaria, Kurt Koch, Bernard Fellay, Richard Williamson….all assume there are known exceptions.

For the Vatican Curia there are known exceptions and so they accept one version of Vatican Council II. For the SSPX there are known exceptions and so they reject Vatican Council II.

So Augustine di Noia says the SSPX are in schism. He is not in schism because he assumes there are defacto, explicit exceptions to the dogma. He does not realize that his concept of Vatican Council II is a hermeneutic of rupture. If he accepted that there are no known exceptions, he would interpret Vatican Council II as a hermeneutic of continuity. This would mean Vatican Council II would be saying Judaism and Protestantism are not paths to salvation. LG 16 and LG 8 would not be exceptions to the dogma.

This would not be acceptable to the Jewish Left who want us to believe that the SSPX are in schism and do not accept their approved version of Vatican Council II.

If he says there are no known exceptions, his concept of Vatican Council II will change. He would have to choose the Anti Semitic version of Vatican Council II and then the Jewish Left will protest. 

Di Noia can mention of course those saved with God’s grace. However no document of Vatican Council II says that they are exceptions to the dogma. He has to imply it personally and please his friends.

In the interview with the National Catholic Register he refers to Ralph Martin of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal. Martin and the Catholic Charismatics proclaim Jesus without the Catholic Church. They can evangelize with the Protestants and do not believe in the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus neither do they accept Vatican Council II (AG 7).

The SSPX bishops and priests do not know what is happening. Since they too believe that there are Protestants who can be saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire etc and these cases can be explicit exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma.

If they knew what was happening they could choose the anti Semitic version of Vatican Council II.It would be in harmony with their values on Judaism and other religions.
-Lionel Andrades

SAINTLY LOOKING LUTHERANS AND ANGLICANS NEED TO ENTER THE CATHOLIC CHURCH : FR.LEONARD FEENEY'S COMMUNITY COMMENTS ON ABP. AUGUSTINE DI NOIA'S STATEMENT

The St.Benedict Center,NH,USA has commented on the statement of Archbishop Augustine Di Noia on extra ecclesiam nulla salus in the interview with the National Catholic Register.

The new Vice President of Ecclesia Dei  tells Edward Pentin:

Ralph Martin agrees with that. We do have a crisis, because the Church has been infected with the idea that we don’t have to worry or be anxious or we don’t sufficiently take the mandate to proclaim Christ seriously. But it’s not because of Vatican II, but bad theology. That’s why Dominus Iesus was part of the response to all of that theology of religion. There is no question that the necessity of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus has a long history. But they were talking about heretics, not nonbelievers. That formula addresses the problems of heresies. It has its history.
The Council did say there are elements of grace in other religions, and I don’t think that should be retracted. I’ve seen them, I know them — I’ve met Lutherans and Anglicans who are saints.  

Bro. Andre Marie says if the saintly looking Lutherans and Anglicans are cooperating with God's grace as given them in these "elements of sanctification and of truth", then they will end up in the bosom and untiy of  Holy Mother Church, whither these elements "impel" them.Let us not forget that the One, Holy, Catholic,and Apostolic Church is the Communiton of Saints.

The Amercian Archbishop suggests he knows of saintly Protestants whom he judges will be going to Heaven and not Hell-he can judge.He comes across as a modernist saying that these Protestants do not  have to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation.

Bro.Andre Marie cites the Council of Florence saying:

It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.-Council of Florence(emphasis added)
Lumen Gentium 8 mentions elements of sanctification in other religions but does not state that we can identify this grace and know if it is sufficient for salvation. One has to assume that someone has this grace and then personally assume that we know this person is going to be saved even though he is a Protestant.

This is contrary to Ad Gentes 7 which says all need Catholic Faith for salvation. 
Lionel Andrades

EENS FORUM ON THE SBC WEBSITE : EVERY ONE IN 2012 MUST BE BAPTIZED WITH WATER AND THERE ARE NO KNOWN EXCEPTIONS

On the forum Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus it is asked if there can be an exception to the dogma outside the church no salvation. This is an important question since it is also asking if Lumen Gentium 16 can be an (explicit) exception to the dogma which says every one needs the baptism of water and Catholic Faith for salvation; all need to convert into the Catholic Church to be saved.
Here is a comment, which needs to be clarified:
So if I follow your logic we must teach that there is No Salvation Outside the Church and everyone must be baptized with water, even though not everyone really needs to be baptized with water? There are no exceptions but there might be a few exceptions?
It could be rephrased:

According to my logic we must teach that there is No Salvation Outside the Church and every one ( on earth in 2012) must be baptized with water, since every one really needs to be baptized with water. There are no (known) exceptions and if there are implicit, unknown to us exceptions, known only to God, it does not contradict the dogma on exclusive salvation being there  in only the Catholic Church.  
 
The St.Benedict Centre  has provided a definition of the baptism of desire which includes receiving the baptism of water. So they do not reject implicit desire or that a genuine implicit desire, known only to God, can be followed by God providing the means for the person to be baptized with water.