Four months have passed and a sedevacantist ( Introibo Ad Altare Dei blog) cannot answer if Lumen Gentium 16 is explicit or implicit and if it is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. There is no comment still from the sedevacantists Bishop Donald Sanborn and Fr. Anthony Cekada.
Introbo Ad Altare Dei (IAAD) has also posted a report on his blog on this issue which we have discussed on Eucharist and Mission. He has not posted many of my comments, except for those he can answer. Correspondence with him can be read on the right bar title IAAD.
He has mentioned an important point though. He says the baptism of desire is mentioned in the Council of Trent and so it was there before the Baltimore Catechism.
It is true that the baptism of desire is mentioned in the Council of Trent and it is a response to the campaign may be scores of years earlier to get rid of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. There are many popes who mention the baptism of desire and say apologetically that the person can be saved with the baptism of desire. Why had they to say this ? Since there were the Masons, Americanists and others who wanted to create confusion and ambiguity with reference to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church. They wanted to eliminate it and finally they have done so..So it was in response to their campaign that popes have been affirming the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and also mentioning the baptism of desire.
They should not have done it this way since the baptism of desire had nothing to do with the dogma.It has resulted in Catholics assuming that the baptism of desire is explicit and so an exception to the strict interpretation of the dogma on salvation.
In the Council of Trent there was only a reference to the baptism of desire but in the Baltimore Catechism the error seems blatant. The error was enforced in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. Cardinal Ottaviani supported Pope Pius XII and Cardinal Francesco Marchetti in the condemnation of Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center. There were no known cases of the baptism of desire , without the baptism of water, past or present, yet they upheld these cases being exceptions to the dogma.How someone be an exception to the dogma when he or she does not exist in our reality. This is was an error in reasoning.They made a mistake.
If the baptism of desire includes or excludes the baptism of water, what had it to do with all needing to be formal members of the Church in the present times? Why in the following passage is B is placed along side A ?
Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."(17) Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him - Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II
This is a mistake. B has nothing to do with the passage A. Since B does not refer to explicit cases. They are a reference to persons who would only be known to God if and when they existed.
So the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance is not an issue, it is not a problem I told IAAD but its placing in the Baltimore Catechism with the necessity of the Baptism of water is the issue. It's placing, the link with extra ecclesiam nulla salus, is also an issue in Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14). The error is blatant. A is the orthodox traditional teaching and Catholics infer that B refers to explicit cases and so is an exception to A.
Similarly for Pope Pius XII, Cardinal Ottaviani and Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani B was an exception to A. B was an exception to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So they criticised Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center for not accepting B as an exception to A.
Similarly for Pope John Paul II, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre B was an exception to A. Archbishop Lefebvre could not accept a Vatican Council II with B an exception to A. While Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger did not know that Vatican Council II could be interpreted with B not being an exception to A but just a hypothetical case known only to God.They accepted Vatican Council II as a break with the past, a break with dogma and they excommunicated Archbishop Lefebvre.
Now Pope Francis and his Magisterium accepts B is an exception to A.He wants the Society of St. Pius X and the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate to accept Vatican Council II with this irrationality.
If they say that they accept Vatican Council II with B not being an exception to A this would not be accepted by the Magisterium and the politcal Left.
In the Council of Trent, the statements of the popes and the Baltimore Catechism the confusion was theoretical but with the Letter of the Holy Ofice 1949 and Vatican Council II the problem is concrete.
If the traditionalists and sedevacantists tomorrow issue a statement saying that there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in Vatican Council II, since rationally we know there cannot be explicit cases of persons saved without 'faith and baptism'- there will be confusion and consternation in the Magisterium, Vatican camp.The Magisterium of Pope Francis will no more be able to cite B as an exception to A.So there will be no references in Vatican Council II to contradict the strict interpretation of the dogma on salvation and Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 ( all need faith and baptism).It would mean ecclesiology has not changed and the Church's traditional teachings on Jews, Muslims and other non Catholics is still the same after Vatican Council II. The sedevantists and traditionalists would not see the passages AG 7, LG 14 as being ambigous, even though the B passages are there in Vatican Council II when they should not have been placed there.
THURSDAY, JUNE 25, 2015
For you UR 3 and LG 8 are exceptions to the dogma.Why? Who do you know today who is saved as mentioned in UR 3,LG 8?
Sedevacantists are teaching irrationality
Bishop Donald Sanborn like Bishop Fellay has made the same mistake : so have Reuters and AP correspondentshttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/10/bishop-donald-sanborn-like-bishop.html