Thursday, April 2, 2015

Yes. The contemporary magisterium has accepted the irrational theology of the liberal theologians. It is now 'magisterial'.

wineinthewater:
"So you have not been able to cite any text from Quanto Conficiamur Moerore or the Council of Trent which says there are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus."
That's because I have never made that argument, and neither does the Church's contemporary teaching.

Lionel:
You initially said.
'If the Church ever actually held the rigorist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, then she threw it away long before 1949. Pope Pius XI rejected the rigorist interpretation in his encyclical Quuanto Conficiamur Moerore. Trent rejected it...'
This is a common misunderstanding in the Church among traditionalists and liberals.
___________________
 
As I have stated multiple times, there is no exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Lionel:
Are you saying every one with no exception on April 2, 2015 needs to formally enter the Church i.e with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water to go to Heaven and avoid Hell? All the Hindus, Jews,Muslims, Protestants and Orthodox Christians are on the way to Hell ? Since they do not have Catholic Faith and the baptism of water or only the Catholic Faith as in the case of other Christians, they will not be saved today ?
___________________

 
I do not believe there are exceptions and the contemporary teaching of the Church does not teach exceptions. There was no change in 1949, no teaching after that differs from t he teaching before.
Lionel:
You earlier said:
'I am assuming that what you mean by the "rigorist position" is the one condemned by Suprema haec sacra, the position of the
"Cambridge-ites", that one must be a visible member of the Church to be saved.'
So here you indicate that there has been a big change.

___________________
 
"Liberal theologians have assumed that being saved in invincible ignorance (whatever be the concept) is explicit and knowable in the present times. Then starts their descent to heresy with this irrationality."
Here is the confusion for me. You have earlier characterized the Church as being guilty of this "irrationality," not just liberal theologians.
Lionel:
Yes. The contemporary magisterium has accepted the irrational theology of the liberal theologians. It is now 'magisterial'.
_______________________
 
I agree that there is a very real risk of turning invincible ignorance and baptism of desire into a de facto universalism or indifferentism. But doing that requires the denial of explicit magisterial teaching, it is not something rooted in teaching after 1949.
"Vatican Council II refers to invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. It leaves it up to us to infer, if these cases, are exceptions to all needing faith and baptism(AG 7) for salvation. So I infer they are not."
Vatican II is not vague. It does not characterize the Baptism of Desire as an exception, nor even in a way that could be interpreted that way. The way that the Council speaks of salvation generally and Baptism of Desire is as something that joins a person of the Church, not as an exception to the necessity of the Church.
Lionel:
O.K if you are saying that every one on April 2 needs to be ' a card carrying member of the Church' , with 'faith and baptism'(AG 7) for salvation.

_____________________
 
"There is no text which says that salvation in Heaven is visible to us on earth to be exceptions to the centuries old interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus."
I do not understand why this is an issue. I have never made this claim. The Church's contemporary teaching does not make this claim; your objection does not apply to the Church's teaching. If you have a problem with heterodox theologians making some formulation akin to this, I have no problem with that. But it has no bearing on the Church's contemporary magisterial teaching.
Lionel:
It does and I don't like saying this.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1257 The Necessity of Baptsm) says God is not limited to the Sacraments!
The dogma tells us that God has chosen to limit salvation to the Sacraments. How would Cardinals Ratzinger and Marchetti know of any exception?
Redemptoris Missio, Dominus Iesus, Christianity and the World Religions (ITC), Balamand Declaration do not uphold the rigorist interpretation of the dogma. They infer that there is known salvation outside the Catholic Church.

_________________________

"1. He says that God will send a
preacher to him. Obviously the preacher will speak about the Faith and baptise him."
Or that God will send him inspiration and that he could be saved even without a visible baptism.

Lionel:
How do you come to this conclusion? What is your source in the Catholic Church?
He will be saved without the baptism of water?
Is it because Cardinal Marchetti first said so? Can a pope, cardinal or magisterial document over rule a defined dogma?
____________________________

 
"Are you affirming the 'rigorist interpretation' of the dogma here? The Feeneyite version with no exceptions?"
I am affirming the unambiguous Catholic interpretation (since we define "rigorist" differently). There are no exceptions to outside the Church there is no salvation, but Baptism of desire, baptism of blood, invincible ignorance, imperfect union provide ways to be inside the Church in ways not readily visible. But such is due to the mercy and and provision of God, not something we can judge.
Lionel:
You have said earlier:
'Or that God will send him inspiration and that he could be saved even without a visible baptism.'
This is an exception.

___________________________
 
And as such, I reject the Feeney-ite position. Because what you have described as your own opinion is not Feeney's. He made his theology quite explicit in his book, Bread of Life:
“Baptism of Water, or damnation! If you do not desire that Water, you cannot be justified. And if you do not get it, you cannot be saved.”
Lionel:
He is perfectly correct.Defacto every one needs the baptism of water for salvation.He is referring to baptism of water given to adults with Catholic Faith.

_________________________
 
He may have allowed that Baptism of Desire could justify, but not that it could save.
Lionel:
He was correct. The Catechuman who implicitly desired the baptism of water and died before he received it, in this hypothetical case, would have received it before he went to Heaven.
The just who died before the coming of Christ had to wait in Abraham's Bosom before they went to Heaven after the Resurrection.They could not straight go to Heaven.
Similarly Limbo was considered a place of waiting. It was neither Heaven or Hell
The Catechuman too, in this theoretical case, could also have been sent back to earth only to be baptised with water. This has been the experience of the saints, including St.Francis of Xavier.
So if there is a concrete case today who will be saved with the baptism of desire or blood, he would be in Heaven as a Catholic saved with the baptism of water.
However either way, with or without the baptism of water, the case cannot be defacto known to us and so it does not contradict the Feeneyite version of the dogma, the traditional interpretation of the popes and saints.It is irrelevant to the dogmatic teachig on exclusive salvation. It is not an exception to the exclusivist ecclesiology of the contemporary Church ( for me).
_____________________________
 
As such, the Feeney-ite position – unless the Feeney-ite position is different from Feeney’s position for some reason – is contrary to Catholic teaching and contrary to the position you have laid out above.
Lionel:
It is true that now there are different interpretations of what Fr.Leonard Feeney believed.
He never recanted.He died holding the rigorist, traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.There was only one interpretation of the dogma before 1949 and which he knew of.
- Lionel Andrades

No comments: