The SSPX founder wrongly inferred that implicit desire ( baptism of desire) was known, seen in public. He possibly took his cue from the Boston Case, when Cardinal Cushing assumed there were known exceptions to the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The error was transferred to Vatican Council II. All salvation mentioned in Vatican Council II ( LG 16, NA 2 etc) he assumed to be objective, seen in the flesh.This is irrational. However he used this irrational inference pf being able to see the dead-saved to assume that Catican Council II ( NA 2, LG 16,UR 3,LG 8etc) contradicts extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The fault was not with Vatican Council II ( NA 2, LG 16, ,LG 8, UR 3, AG 11) were invisible for us and known only to God.Vatican Council II would not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Instead Ad Gentes 7 , all need faith and baptism for salvation) supports the traditional dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
So the SSPX bishops, including Williamson,.would affirm traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus but also infer that there were known exceptions.
They would criticize the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney.Now after some 70-plus years its clear that we cannot name any one saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance.So how can these cases be exceptions to the dogma on salvation.
They are possibilities known only to God. They are not exceptions in 2014 to all needing to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation (to avoid Hell). All means, no known exceptions.
Bishop Willamson, nor the other SSPX bishops were aware that the same error was made by Fr.Luiz Ladaria S.J, President of the International Theological Commission.Fr.Ladaria, now a cardinal, led the Vatican side in the doctrinal talks with the SSPX.
Pope Benedict XVI and Cardinal Luiz Ladaria, Secretary, Congergation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican, have left this error, to be confirmed at any time, on two theological papers of the ITC. They are The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without being baptized and Christianity and the World Religions. Similar to Ladaria and the SSPX , the Secretary of the ITC , Bishop Charles Morerod O.P who participated in the talks would not affirm the literal interpretation of the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.There were explicit exceptions for all of them.
Here is the passage approved by Cardinal Ladaria and Bishop Morerod.
59. The Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston (1949) offers
further specifications. “To gain eternal salvation, it is not always required
that a person be incorporated in reality (reapse) as a member of the Church, but
it is necessary that one belong to it at least in desire and longing (voto et
desiderio). It is not always necessary that this desire be explicit as it is
with catechumens.
When one is invincibly ignorant, God also accepts an implicit desire, so
called because it is contained in the good disposition of soul by which a person
wants his or her will to be conformed to God’s will”.- The Hope of Salvation for
Infants who die without the being baptized', International Theological
Commission,2007
Here it is again:
“To gain eternal salvation, it is not always required that a person be incorporated in reality (reapse) as a member of the Church, but it is necessary that one belong to it at least in desire and longing (voto et desiderio).
Note :He is mentioning this relative to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus by Fr.Leonard Feeney.
He is rejecting the literal interpretation, i.e everyone needs to convert into the Church, and he is implying that every one does not need to convert into the Church.
Every one does not need to convert for him since a person can be saved with implcit desire ! Implicit desire which is de facto (explicit). Implicit desire/baptism of desire which is known. It would have to be known for it to be an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
Why mention baptism of desire if it is only hypothetical for him ? If it is only hypothetical, accepted in theory it would not be an exception.For him it is an exception.
So he infers that the baptism of desire is defacto known in the present times.
Here is another passage approved by Pope Benedict. Cardinal Muller and Archbishop Di Noia have also been active with the ITC and overlooked this. More of the same.
67. Vatican Council II makes its own the expression extra ecclesiam nulla
salus. But in using it the council explicitly directs itself to Catholics and
limits its validity to those who know the necessity of the Church for salvation.
The council holds that the affirmation is based on the necessity of faith and of
baptism affirmed by Christ (LG 14). In this way the council aligned itself in
continuity with the teaching of Pius XII, but emphasized more clearly the
original parenthentical character of this expression.- Christianity and the
World Religions 1997,International Theological Commission
Every one does not need to convert into the Church but only those who know about the necessity of the Church.
The dogma says every one needs to convert but the ITC says only those who 'know'.
Those who know or do not know are known only to God. These are invisible for us cases.How can what is invisible and hypothetical for us be an exception to all needing to convert into the Church in the present times.
It cannot be an exception.
Vatican Council II (Lumen Gentium 14) refers to it as a possibility a hypothetical case.It does not refer to it as a known actuality and so an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The ITC has mixed up invisible for visible, hypotehetical for known in reality.
With this mix up it rejects the traditional interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation.
'10. Exclusivist ecclesiocentrism—the fruit of a specific theological system
or of a mistaken understanding of the phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus—is no
longer defended by Catholic theologians after the clear statements of Pius XII
and Vatican Council II on the possibility of salvation for those who do not
belong visibly to the Church (cf, e.g., LG 16; GS 22)...'-International
Theological Commission, Christianity and the World Religions
Here the Vatican's ITC is saying that the old ecclesiology is no more held by theologians, including the ITC, based on extra ecclesiam nulla salus,after the statements of Pope Pius XII and Vatican Council II (LG 16 etc) 'on the possibility' of those who do not belong visibly to the Church.
ITC is inferring that there is no more exclusive salvation in the Church since a non Catholic can be saved who is not a visible member of the Church.This is a possibility.
How can a possibility be an exception to the dogma?
Yet it is an exception for the ITC.
How can they reject the teaching on exclusive salvation when they do not know any case in real life? They do not know any case in real life saved outside the Church, so how can there be an exception?
The ITC is not saying, that all need to enter the Church visibly for salvation and there are no exceptions. This was the position of Fr.Leonard Feeney. Instead it is saying there are exceptions.
This is the same error made by Archbishop Lefebvre in the new book published by Angelus Press , Against the Heresies.
Here is more of the same. Its from the ITC website but it could be a statement of the SSPX too. They overlooked it all these years. No one protested.
67. Vatican Council II makes its own the expression extra ecclesiam nulla
salus. But in using it the council explicitly directs itself to Catholics and
limits its validity to those who know the necessity of the Church for salvation.
The council holds that the affirmation is based on the necessity of faith and of
baptism affirmed by Christ (LG 14). In this way the council aligned itself in
continuity with the teaching of Pius XII, but emphasized more clearly the
original parenthentical character of this expression.- Christianity and the
World Religions 1997,International Theological Commission
Note:Every one does not need to convert into the Church but only those who know about the necessity of the Church.The dogma says every one needs to convert but the ITC says only those who 'know'.Those who know or do not know are known only to God. These are invisible for us cases.How can what is invisible and hypothetical for us be an exception to all needing to convert into the Church in the present times.It cannot be an exception.
Vatican Council II (Lumen Gentium 14) refers to it as a possibility a hypothetical case.It does not refer to it a a known actuality.So it cannot be an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The ITC has mixed up invisible for visible, hypotehetical for known in reality.With this mix up it rejects the traditional interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation.
Here it is again:
“To gain eternal salvation, it is not always required that a person be incorporated in reality (reapse) as a member of the Church, but it is necessary that one belong to it at least in desire and longing (voto et desiderio).
Note :He is mentioning this relative to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus by Fr.Leonard Feeney.
He is rejecting the literal interpretation, i.e everyone needs to convert into the Church, and he is implying that every one does not need to convert into the Church.
Every one does not need to convert for him since a person can be saved with implcit desire ! Implicit desire which is de facto (explicit). Implicit desire/baptism of desire which is known. It would have to be known for it to be an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
Why mention baptism of desire if it is only hypothetical for him ? If it is only hypothetical, accepted in theory it would not be an exception.For him it is an exception.
So he infers that the baptism of desire is defacto known in the present times.
Here is another passage approved by Pope Benedict. Cardinal Muller and Archbishop Di Noia have also been active with the ITC and overlooked this. More of the same.
Every one does not need to convert into the Church but only those who know about the necessity of the Church.
The dogma says every one needs to convert but the ITC says only those who 'know'.
Those who know or do not know are known only to God. These are invisible for us cases.How can what is invisible and hypothetical for us be an exception to all needing to convert into the Church in the present times.
It cannot be an exception.
Vatican Council II (Lumen Gentium 14) refers to it as a possibility a hypothetical case.It does not refer to it as a known actuality and so an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The ITC has mixed up invisible for visible, hypotehetical for known in reality.
With this mix up it rejects the traditional interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation.
Here the Vatican's ITC is saying that the old ecclesiology is no more held by theologians, including the ITC, based on extra ecclesiam nulla salus,after the statements of Pope Pius XII and Vatican Council II (LG 16 etc) 'on the possibility' of those who do not belong visibly to the Church.
ITC is inferring that there is no more exclusive salvation in the Church since a non Catholic can be saved who is not a visible member of the Church.This is a possibility.
How can a possibility be an exception to the dogma?
Yet it is an exception for the ITC.
How can they reject the teaching on exclusive salvation when they do not know any case in real life? They do not know any case in real life saved outside the Church, so how can there be an exception?
The ITC is not saying, that all need to enter the Church visibly for salvation and there are no exceptions. This was the position of Fr.Leonard Feeney. Instead it is saying there are exceptions.
This is the same error made by Archbishop Lefebvre in the new book published by Angelus Press , Against the Heresies.
Here is more of the same. Its from the ITC website but it could be a statement of the SSPX too. They overlooked it all these years. No one protested.
Note:Every one does not need to convert into the Church but only those who know about the necessity of the Church.The dogma says every one needs to convert but the ITC says only those who 'know'.Those who know or do not know are known only to God. These are invisible for us cases.How can what is invisible and hypothetical for us be an exception to all needing to convert into the Church in the present times.It cannot be an exception.
Vatican Council II (Lumen Gentium 14) refers to it as a possibility a hypothetical case.It does not refer to it a a known actuality.So it cannot be an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The ITC has mixed up invisible for visible, hypotehetical for known in reality.With this mix up it rejects the traditional interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation.
In most books published by the SSPX this irrational inference is used.Lay supporters of the SSPX are not aware of this error.They buy these books which criticize Vatican Council II when the fault is with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
The common interpretation of Vatican Council II for SSPX lay supporters is a break with Tradition.For me, Vatican Council II supports Tradition on other religions, ecumenism and religious liberty.
Evidently,certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism,etc.), but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions,who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire. ("Against the Heresies",p.216)1
Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion...which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire- Archbishop Lefebvre,Against the Heresies.
Yes they can be saved hypothetically. De facto we do not know of any such case. So why mention it. When there are no known cases then there are no exceptions to the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
Here is Archbishop Lefebvre again trying to accomodare the baptism of desire as an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.He is trying to adapt to the Boston Case.
We must say it clearly: such a concept is radically opposed to Catholic dogma. The Church is the one ark of salvation, and we must not be afraid to affirm it. You have often heard it said, “Outside the Church there is no salvation”--a dictum which offends contemporary minds. It is easy to believe that this doctrine is no longer in effect, that it has been dropped. It seems excessively severe...
The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God. As priests we must state the truth.-Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre 1
If any one is saved in his religion, and outside the visible limits of the Catholic Church, it would not be known to us in the present times.So it could not be an exception to the literal and traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
Nostra Aetate 2, saved with a' ray of the Truth' or 'seeds of the Word (AG 11) are also not exceptions to the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. For Archbishop Lefebvre it was an exception. It is also an exception for the SSPX bishops and priests.It is an exception for the ITC.
All are in the same leaking boat.
Nostra Aetate 2, saved with a' ray of the Truth' or 'seeds of the Word (AG 11) are also not exceptions to the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. For Archbishop Lefebvre it was an exception. It is also an exception for the SSPX bishops and priests.It is an exception for the ITC.
All are in the same leaking boat.
-Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment