False reasoning from the Letter is all over Vatican Council II: Abp Lefebvre did not notice it -3

This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth". This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.-Lumen Gentium 8, Vatican Council II

LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949

Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.-Letter of the Holy Office

CONCLUSION

it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member

WHY ?

Since 'one may obtain eternal salvation' also 'by desire and longing'.

SO WHAT?

And these cases are known, they are explicit in the present times and so they are exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).

HOW CAN THEY BE EXPLICIT FOR US?

Since someone has seen these cases in Heaven saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.

Someone knows of persons who will be saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.

 

False premise: There are people in Heaven saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church and they are known to us in the present times.

False inference : These persons are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So it is not always required that a person be incorporated into the Church actually as a member.
____________________________

LUMEN GENTIUM 8

I

 'although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.'-Lumen Gentium 8, Vatican Council II

FALSE PREMISE: 'among persons known to us'

'many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity'  (and they are among persons known to us).

 

FALSE INFERENCE : 'so all do not need to convert formally into the Church for salvation'.

These are persons known to us, these 'many elements of sanctification and of truth' who ' are found outside of its visible structure.'   So it is concluded that all do not need to convert formally into the Church for salvation, there is salvation outside the Catholic Church.

_______________________________

 

II

 

'although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.'-Lumen Gentium 8, Vatican Council II

 

CONCLUSION

it is not always required that he ( a non Catholic, a non baptised person ) be incorporated into the Church actually as a member

 

WHY ?

Since 'one may obtain eternal salvation' also 'by desire and longing'. Or being one of the 'elements of sanctification and of truth...found outside of its visible structure', 'gifts belonging to the Church of Christ', 'impelling toward catholic unity'.

 

SO WHAT?

And these cases are known, they are explicit in the present times and so they are exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).We personally know non Catholics saved with  'elements of sanctification and of truth...found outside of its visible structure', 'gifts belonging to the Church of Christ', 'impelling toward catholic unity'. We know of cases now already in Heaven, , as such, who do not have 'faith and baptism'. This is the reasoning here.

HOW CAN THEY BE EXPLICIT FOR US?

Since someone has seen these cases in Heaven saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.

Someone knows people who will be saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.

Explicit cases? They are seen in the flesh with 'elements of sanctification and truth', outside the Church ?

Yes, since if they are not explicit cases how can they be relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? They would also have to be objective cases, personally known to be exceptions or relevant to the passage above( in orange), which is  in agreement with the dogma on exclusive salvation.So invisible cases were assumed to be visible and this passage was placed in Vatican Council II. This is the common wrong inference accepted even today.

See the pattern. See how passages referring to speculative, hypothetical cases, known only to God if they existed, are placed in Vatican Council II.Then people are allowed to infer that they are visible cases in the present times. So with the inference they become exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesium nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors, and the old ecclesiology. They become exceptions to the old understanding of ecumenism and the need for non Catholics to convert into the Church fornally, with faith and baptism.

We see the same pattern of error in Nostra Aetate 2, Unitatis Redintigratio 3, Ad Gentes 7 , Lumen Genttium 8, and so many other passages in Vatican Council II.
The error was not known to Fr. Daniel Couture, Superior General of the SSPX, Canada. He has issued a statement critical of the Vatican Document on Christian-Jewish Dialogue issued recently by the Vatican,under pressure from the Jewish Left. Fr. Couture in his statement has not used the traditional exclusivist ecclesiology, based on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Since for him NA 2, UR 3, AG 7, LG 8 etc refer to explicit cases which are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is his error and that of the SSPX bishops.
I have shown here how there are no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in Vatican Council II only if the text is interpreted with NA 2, UR 3, AG 7, LG 8 referring to invisible and not visible cases.

NA 2, UR 3, AG 7, LG 8 seen with Feeneyism ( there are no known, explicit, objective exceptions to the dogma EENS) are not a break with Tradition. However seen with Cushingism ( there are known, explicit, objective exceptions to the exclusivist intepretation of the dogma EENS) they are exceptions to Tradition, a break with the past.

_________________________________

-Lionel Andrades

 

False reasoning from the Letter is all over Vatican Council II: Abp Lefebvre did not notice it -2 http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/12/the-false-reasoning-from-letter-is-all_30.html

False reasoning from the Letter is all over Vatican Council II: Abp Lefebvre did not notice it -1 http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/12/the-false-reasoning-from-letter-is-all.html

The Letter made a mistake. Archbishop Lefebvre did not notice it

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/12/the-letter-made-mistakearchbishop.html

Fr. Daniel Couture, the District Superior of Canada issues a controversial statement critical of the Vatican Document on the Jews http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/12/fr-daniel-couture-district-superior-of.html