I am not saying that absolutely no one outside the Church is saved
Lionel:
Defacto in 2015 we do not know any one who is saved outside the Church i.e without 'faith and baptism'(Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II).So there are no known exceptions to the dogma in 2015. We cannot meet any one who will be saved without the baptism of water and neither do we know of anyone this year who has been saved without the baptism of water. So there are no exceptions to the Feeneyite version of the dogma. The cardinal who issued the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made a mistake.
(even if several popes and more than one ecumenical Council did make that exact definition, that “outside of which absolutely no one at all may be saved.”
Lionel:
They are not contradicted by Vatican Council II (AG 7).LG 16,LG 8,UR 3, NA 2 are not exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 and the 'rigorist interpretation' of the dogma.
I say that because we do know God is infinitely merciful and none of us know the eternal destination of any save canonized Saints. But I do fear that there remains even among quite orthodox Catholics a tendency to perhaps overstate just how likely salvation outside the Church may be. The guidance of the Saints tells us almost all of them believed it was not very likely at all.
Lionel:
Vatican Council II says all need 'faith and baptism' for salvation.Most people die without 'faith and baptism'. Most people are oriented to Hell according to Vatican Council II and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
But to the title of the post: obviously it is a nice thing to hope that all can be saved. But is it truly just, and charitable, to tell those outside the Church it is likely they are saved, or to wishfully hope for universal salvation, when there is so much evidence against that belief? Our Blessed Lord Himself told us there would be souls damned, and in fact said that MOST would be. So is it not unjust and uncharitable to encourage false hopes, to weaken evangelical/missionary efforts, to assuage our guilty consciences, and to shirk our own sacred duty by maintaining a strong belief that there is a good chance of salvation outside the Church? My sensus fidei, badly formed though it may be, says yes.
Lionel:
The Vatican Curia assumes there is known salvation outside the Church. They support the Cardinal Marchetti Selvaggiani error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.This is the confusion even among good Catholics.
In fact, I think the argument can be made that justice demands that, if salvation outside the Church is very difficult, that popular presentations should at least stress that much, if not default to the very long held public proclamations of the Church (and many Saints, as noted) that salvation outside the Church for practical purposes does not exist. That is the safe thing to do, the conservative thing to do, is it not, from the perspective of encouraging conversion and having true charity for the eternal destination of souls?
Lionel:
The situation is made difficult when Tantumblogo ( on this Dallas blog ) and Patrick Archbald, Michael Voris and others assume that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma.
The National Catholic Register will not allow comments which support the traditional interpretation of the dogma which indicate most people are on the path to Hell.
Discuss. Have a blessed weekend. I’m out. And this post is a bit of a response to Pat Archbold’s post here, which isn’t at all indifferentist, but I think paints Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus in perhaps not as strong or positive a light as it should be.
Lionel:
He thinks Fr.Leonard Feeney made an error and Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Holy Office were correct.
I also think the Feeneyites have long gotten a bit of a bum rap, not that I will ever make a hard claim that I know the eternal destiny of any soul, or that it is absolutely impossible for a particular outside the Church to be saved.
Lionel:
Theologically they are correct.There is no salvation outside the Church and all need to enter the Church with no exception.There could be people saved with the baptism of desire etc, which would be followed with the baptism of water. The baptism of water is the norm and there are no exceptions to it.
They still have to acknowledge that empirically we cannot physically see or personally know any exception in the present times.This would call for a re-interpretation of Vatican Council II by the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.These are the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney, the St.Benedict Centers in the diocese of Worcester and Manchester,USA. They are not willing to do this. This of course would put them in opposition to their bishop, and the liberal left, who support the Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani error.
I am not saying that. I am saying, perhaps there was great wisdom and virtue in stressing the enormous practical difficulties of salvation outside the Church, and that perhaps we should get back to that time-honored practice, which was so commonly held by Catholics for 1900 years or so, which taught that salvation outside the Church was perhaps not totally impossible, but as rare as hen’s teeth.
Lionel:
There was no salvation outside the Church before 1949 and there is no salvation outside the Church after 1949 since the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are not objective exceptions to the dogma.
A final thought: we live in a culture that is geared towards indifferentism. The whole Anglo-Saxon heritage this nation received from Britain, and the history of how the Church of England came about and all the dissenting bodies, have left very deep marks on the culture that orient it towards religious indifferentism. This nation prides itself on “freedom of religion,” with the state at the very least keeping religion at arm’s length, and tending more and more towards outright hostility at least towards Catholicism. To what degree is the widespread desire to tout salvation outside the Church as a real and viable possibility colored by those profound cultural trends, and is Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus treated more widely accepted outside the Anglosphere?
Lionel:
Rorate Caeili could not discuss extra ecclesiam nulla salus. New Catholic had to pull down some comments after he got a warning from the Reformed Jew professor( according to Rorate) who teaches ecumenism at the Angelicum University, Rome. This was even though this issue is related to the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
The Catholic Herald,U.K also had to pull down comments and stop any discussion on this subject because of charges of anti-Semitism.
For the last few years the community of Fr.Leonard Feeney in the Diocese of Manchester,USA at their annual conference no longer have extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Fr.Leonard Feeney as a subject.
Cardinal Gerhard Muller and Archbishop Augustine Di Noia in two separate interviews with Edward Pentin of the National Catholic Register were asked about extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
They responded that the dogma no longer applies after Vatican Council II.In the sense , that there is known salvation to both of them, outside the Church.This is how they interpret Vatican Council II. The dead-saved are visible exceptions to the dogma! No one protested.
Edward Pentin refuses to touch this subject again, since he probably got the usual threats from the Left.
-Lionel Andrades
Pat Archbold every one with no exception in 2015 needs to ' have their Catholic membership cards stamped and notarized' .This is official according to magisterual texts.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/01/pat-archbold-every-one-with-no.html
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment