Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate sign the doctrinal preamble:Vatican Council II is not the real issue
The Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate and the Society of St. Pius X(SSPX) must go ahead and sign the doctrinal preamble since the real issue is not Vatican Council II. I repeat the real issue is not Vatican Council II.
Understand this.It is very important.Everything that I have to stay begins with this passage in blue.
The real issue is : is there an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus? Is there someone known in the past or present who will be an exception to all needing to be members of the Church in 2017 for salvation? Do we know someone who will be saved outside the visible limits of the Church;without faith and baptism ? Is there known salvation outside the Catholic Church among the Muslims, Jews, Hindus,Protestants,Orthdox Christians,atheists and others? This would be the issue when you, for example, affirm Vatican Council II.
Now reason out.
Even if there were such cases known to God over the last 100 years they would not be an exception to EENS since they would not be visible and known for us human beings.They would not be personally seen and known to human beings.Zero cases of somebody are not exceptions to the dogma EENS said John Martignoni the Catholic apologist who has a program on EWTN TV.If someone is not there he cannot be an exception to anything.The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are not exceptions to EENS says Fr. Stefano Visintin osb, Vice Rector and former Dean of Theology, University of St. Anselm, Rome.Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson agrees with him.
So if the Good Thief on the Cross died allegedly without the baptism of water it is not an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in 2017. If there is a St.Emerentiana in the past who died without the baptism of water in the Church and is declared a saint, she is not an exception to the dogma EENS in 2017. Since, for there to be an exception to the dogma in the present times(2017,1965 or1949 ) the person would have to be there.The person would have to exist.The person would have to be known by name. A person who does not exist in 2017 cannot be relevant or an exception to the dogma EENS.
If there is a box or apples and there is one orange there then the orange is an exception since it is different but also since it exists there in that box.It had to be there in the box to be an exception.
Similarly a baptism of desire case cannot be an exception or relevant to the dogma since it is an invisible case for us. If someone was saved as such it would only be known to God. A possibility in the past cannot be an exception to the dogma EENS in 2017.This is all basic philosophy.Simple reasoning.Yet the two popes and all their cardinals and bishops will say there are exceptions....The SSPX and FSSP priests will say that St.Emerentiana died without the baptism of water a long time back and she is in Heaven, and she is an exception to the dogma EENS.So every one does not need to be a member of the Church in 2017 is there conclusion.
The entire philosophy and theology in Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 is based on this error.Once you are aware that the Church Fathers, at Vatican Council II assumed people who did not exist were exceptions to the dogma EENS you see through Vatican Council II.The Council is full of this philosophical mistake.
So when Cardinal Braz de Avez asks the Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate to affirm Vatican Council II it must be kept in mind that he wants them to assume invisible people are relevant and exceptions to the dogma EENS.In this way Vatican Council II becomes a rupture with EENS.
Similarly when Archbishop Guido Pozzo asks the SSPX to sign a doctrinal preamble he interpretsVatican Council II assuming hypothetical and theoretical cases are objective and seen in 2017.So Vatican Council II in this way becomes a rupture with the dogma EENS , as it was interpreted over the centuries.Guido Pozzo would be saying there is known salvation outside the Church even when he does not know and cannot know any one saved as such outside the Church.
So once this false reasoning is noted it should be clear that Vatican Council II can be accepted by assuming invisible cases are just invisible, hypothetical cases are just hypothetical and so they are not exceptions to the old ecclesiology of the Church. In this way Vatican Council II is not a rupture with the past.
So the issue is not Vatican Council II any more. Vatican Council II was never the issue.
Go ahead and sign the document they want .Know that the real issue is extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the use or omission of the false premise( invisible cases are visible).
So affirm Vatican Council II, avoid the false premise and affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century. Ask Cardinal Braz de Avez to do the same.Ask Archbishop Guido Pozzo and the Conferences of Catholic Bishops to do the same.Ask Pope Benedict to do likewise.Tell him that in March 2016 when he said in the daily Avvenire that the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus was no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century he was assuming that invisible and hypothetical cases (LG 16 etc) mentioned in Vatican Council II, were visible and known in 2016. This was a rupture between faith and reason.It was a philosophical error which he needs to correct.
So it is important to go back to the original blue passage in this report.It is at the centre of what I keep writing so much about. We have found the missing link as to what makes Vatican Council II a rupture with Tradition.What precisely causes the hermeneutic of rupture or continuity with Tradition ? Now we know!!