Tuesday, March 10, 2015

Extra ecclesiam nulla salus tattoo?

Musings of a Pertinacious PapistI spent several hours tonight significantly revising and expanding the thing. If nothing else, pray over the following image, which I’m tempted to get tattooed on my shoulder blades.-Elliot Bougis
I believe that nevertheless all those outside the Church though no fault of their own will be saved if they follow their conscience and do not die in mortal sin - and will have received the baptism of water and Catholic Faith.
I believe that those who labour under ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance be invincible are not before God burdened by guilt of this thing- and if they are saved God will send a preacher to them who will instruct them and baptise them, as St. Thomas Aquinas taught.
I believe that this is what I mean when I say outside the Church there is no salvation - it is, that every one needs to be formal members of the Catholic Church with 'faith and baptism'(AG 7) and being saved in invincible ignorance is not an exception to the dogma, since we do not know of any explicit case in 2015.There cannot be any exceptions for us.
Tony Jokin says:

I always found the line “that those will be lost who are convinced that the Catholic religion is the true religion, and yet refuse to embrace it” as missing key information.
Lionel:This line comes from the factual error Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani made when he issued the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
He assumed that being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire being exceptions to the traditional strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, referred to explicit cases, visible in 1949. So these objective cases referred to people for him, who would be saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. He  reasoned that only those who know ( as compared to those who are in ignorance) need to enter the Church.This has become a new confusing doctrine in the Church, which is  accepted by the magisterium. The line is inserted in Vatican Council II (LG 14 etc)_____________________________
Because taking that proposition as it is, I do not see how there is any need to preach the gospel at all.
Lionel: It is a proposition based on a factual error. Cardinal Marchetti could not see the dead saved without the baptism of water. He did not really know of any case of salvation outside the Church.
It would appear that our success in convincing someone of the truth of the Catholic religion is what leads one to damnation in some cases. I am thinking of cases where conversion is very inconvenient for a person but a “Catholic idiot” decided to explain how the Catholic Church is the true Church to someone.
Lionel:Ad Gentes 7 anyway says all need faith and baptism for salvation. Also LG 14 has the same message . So we have the traditional teaching here.We cannot judge or know who 'knows' or 'who does not know' .This is known only to God. So we proclaim that all  need faith and baptism to avoid Hell .(AG 7,LG 14, Vatican Council II)
If this were true, Christ shouldn’t have spoken about the fact that one would be hated by their family and loved ones for his name. He should have rather instructed the followers to refrain from preaching the good news lest it cause inconvenience and lead them to damnation.
Lionel: Affirm AG 7 and LG 14 and say there are no known exceptions in 2015 i.e we don't personally know anyone saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire. You are back to the original extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Fr.Leonard Feeneyite, traditional version.You will be hated by just about all.

So I believe that the key information missing in that proposition is that “often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.(129) Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, “Preach the Gospel to every creature”,(130) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.” (Lumen Gentium, 16). The key word being “often”.

I would say, practically speaking, it is highly unlikely, but not impossible, that someone who is outside of the Catholic Church will be saved.
Lionel: We do not know any such case in 2015. So it is not an issue with regard to the dogma. The cardinals Marchetti and Cushing made it appear as if it was relevant to the strict interpretation of the dogma.
Since it is unlikely, no Catholic should use that proposition to define ones operating principles, especially with respect to missionary activity and fighting error.
Lionel:The operating principle is in Ad Gentes  7 and Lumen Gentium 14 and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Cardinal Angelo Amato called for evangelisation based on LG 14 and AG 7, Vatican Council II-Lionel Andrades 

Vatican Council II (premise-free) agrees with the SSPX position on an ecumenism of return and non Christians needing to convert for salvation

In the 2012 General Chapter Statement (GCS) the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) affirmed extra ecclesiam nulla salus  with no exceptions and this was rejected by the Vatican. This was the doctrinal difference.No one writes or talks about it.They missed an opportunity for reconcilitation.
Both sides use an irrational premise in the interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) which contradicts the GCS. Bishop Bernard Fellay, Fr.Pierpaolo Petrucci, the District Superior in Italy, Fr.Francois Laisney, author of the SSPX book critical of Feeneyism, use the Marchetti premise to interpret EENS.Likewise Cardinal Gerhard Muller,Cardinal Luiz Ladaria, Archbishop Augustine  Di Noia also use Marchetti's inference.Both groups are in the dark.
So none of them doctrinally agrees with the GCS which supports Feeneyism.
The second point is that the SSPX uses this same Marchetti premise to interpret Vatican Council II and rejects the Council.Cardinal Muller also uses the same irrational premise to interpret Vatican Council II and accepts the Council as a break with EENS.
Thirdly with the Marchetti irrational inference, for both of them, the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 contradicts itself and the dogma EENS. Yet this is acceptable for the CDF and the SSPX.
Now Cardinal Muller wants the SSPX to accept Vatican Council II as a break with the GCS, on EENs.He wants them to accept Vatican Council II interpreted with Marchetti's irrationality.
Cardinal Muller is not willing to shift from his heretical position, he will not say that Vatican Council II without Marchetti's premise, is in perfect agreement with the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma, the strict interpretation of the Church Councils, popes and saints.There is an option, another way.
Vatican Council II ( premise-free) agrees with the strict interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation.Vatican Council II is in agreement with the SSPX position on an ecumenism of return and the need for all non Christians to formally convert into  the Catholic Church to avoid Hell and go to Heaven.Vatican Council II agrees with the GCS and cardinals Muller and Ladaria, the Prefect and Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican (CDF) will not announce this!!
The SSPX is correct in rejecting the Muller-Di Noia interpretation of Vatican Council II, which has the hermeneutic of rupture and is a rupture with EENS, the Syllabus of Errors etc.
The SSPX must identify the false premise. Ask the CDF to interpret the Council without the Marchetti irrational premise.
They must note that even the Catechism of the Catholic Church interprets EENS with the Marchetti premise which is that persons who are saved in Heaven are explcit exceptions on earth to all needing to formally convert into the Church for salvation. CCC 1257 says God is not limited to the Sacraments while the dogma tells us that God has chosen to limit salvation to the Sacraments.
So who will ask Cardinal Muller to interpret Church documents without the irrational premise ? Who is going to ask him to not use the premise of being physically  able to see the dead now saved in Heaven ? Who will tell him that we cannot see in Heaven persons saved  with the baptism of desire or being saved in invincible ignorance?

Whenever any one says that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to EENS , he  is using the false premise.
1) He infers people in Heaven saved as such are explicit on earth to be exceptions. The dead for us,  now  in Heaven  are visible in the flesh!?
2) He infers he knows of people on earth who will be saved without the baptism of water and Catholic Faith.
So if anyone says there are exceptions to EENS it is irrational. It is fantasy. It is heretical and contradicts pre-1949 tradition.
Those who want to resolve this doctrinal confusion must identify the problem.
a) The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorane are not exceptions to EENS.
b) All salvation mentioned in Vatican Council II do not refer to explicit exceptions to EENS.
c) Cardinal Francesco Marchetti-Selvaggiani did not know any one in 1949 saved outside the Church i.e without 'faith and baptism'.
d) Neither was there any Church document before 1949 which made this claim.The Council of Trent and Mystici Corporis for example, only mention the possibility of a person being saved with implicit desire or in invincible ignorance. They do not state that these cases are known to us in the present times or that they are exceptions to EENS. This has to be inferred and this  was wrongly inferred by Cardinal Francesco Marchetti-Selvaggiani, Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits in Boston.
3.There is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict Ad Gentes 7 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.So there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the 'rigorist interpretation' of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The CDF/Ecclesia Dei are not expected to clarify these points in public.SInce they want 'good relations' with the Jewish Left.
The Left approves the magisterium, traditionalists, sedevacantists and others  interpreting Vatican Council II with the Marchetti error. It is a top priority with them.
For me, there is no change in the teachings of the Church  before and after Vatican Council II .Vatican Council II tells us that most people are on the way to Hell  at the time of death. Since they do not have 'faith and baptism'.It tells us that all non Catholics need to formally convert into the Church with 'faith and baptism' to avoid Hell and that Catholics have the promised Jewish Messiah. They  are the new people of God , the Chosen People ( Nostra Aetate).1 -Lionel Andrades


By the constant Magisterium the SSPX really means the Magisterium before 1949 which did not use the false premise

What makes a traditionalist or liberal ? It's the premise and EENS

Cardinal Raymond Burke interprets Church documents with an irrational premise and conclusion and offers the Traditional Latin Mass

Capitularies of the SSPX's 2012 General Chapter