Archbishop Carlo Vigano and his group of Lefebvrists do not state that all non Catholics are oriented to Hell without faith and baptism (AG 7).Instead Vigano suggests that hypothetical cases , saved by 'the desire' are objective examples of salvation outside the Church and exceptions to exclusive salvation.This is how Cardinal Ratzinger and the liberals would interpret Nostra Aetate and Lumen Gentium 16.
In his case and that of the Lefebvrists, it's not enough to say outside the Church there is no salvation.They need to clarify if they mean outside the Church there is no salvation, with or without exceptions.
For me hypothetical cases mentioned in Vatican Council II are not objective exceptions to exclusive salvation.I have said it often on this blog.
Vigano practically holds the liberal position and that of the Left.For him there is known salvation in other religions,including pagan ones.It would have to be 'known' and not just speculative, since he cannot affirm EENS with no exceptions.
Without the exceptions, there would be no New Ecumenism, New Ecclesiology, New Theology , New Evangelisation etc.
It's only with the false premise( what is unknown is considered known) that there is the New Ecumenism etc and the rejection of the traditionalist exclusivist ecclesiology. This is Cushingism and Vigano is a Cushingite.So he interprets Vatican Council II as a rupture with Tradition ( EENS Feeneyite, Syllabus of Error Feeneyite etc).
He and his group of Lefebvrists do not acknowledge the existence of the false premise and its common use by them.
Since with God all things are possible, he can assume that there is salvation outside the Church in other religions - but the moment he postulates this as an exception EENS for us human beings, it is an error.Since there can be no practical exceptions to EENS for us humans.The norm for salvation is faith and the baptism of water, which is practical and knowable.
It is with this point that a rupture is created with the Church Fathers adn Doctors of the Church who did not mix up what is hypothetical as being objective.
It was Cardinal Ratzinger and the liberals who would go back in time and re-interpret the saints and popes, when they mentioned the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance, as referring to objective and visible non Catholics saved outside the Church and exceptions to EENS. The Lefebvrists make the same mistake. -Lionel Andrades
Posts
