The Italian apologist Corrado Gnerre 1 does not realize that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO) made an objective mistake. The baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) were always hypothetical and invisible.They always referred to unknown cases.It was speculation, something hoped for.So the popes over the centuries did not consider them exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
LOHO made this mistake. LOHO considered BOD and I.I as exceptions to Feeneyite EENS. In other words there were visible and known non Catholics saved outside the Church. So the new conclusion was that every one did not need to enter the Church for salvation. Outside the Church there was salvation. There was known salvation.
The same mistake was repeated at Vatican Council II. Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation and AG 7 also mentions being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.
So in 1965-2020 we know there are no literal cases of someone saved in invincible ignorance(LG 16) or baptism of desire (LG 14) or where the Chruch subsists outside its visibile boundaries(LG 8).Practically there are no such cases.
The liberal theologians at Vatican Council II in principle assumed invisible cases were visible, hypothetical cases were objective exceptions to EENS.
So traditional EENS was made obsolete. The Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX and the Athanasius Creed were made obsolete.
The Catechism of Pope Pius X when it mentions invincible ignorance contradicts the same Catechism when it refers to exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church (24 Q,27 Q).
The Catechism of the Catholic Church also contradicts itself because of the irrationality from LOHO.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1257) says all need the baptism of water for salvation and CCC 1257 also says God is not limited to the Sacraments, as if this is an exception, which is known and visible.
So a New Theology was created. Since it was assumed that the baptism of desire etc referred to visible and known non Catholics saved outside the Catholic Church.
Then it was concluded that outside the Church there is salvation.
So LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA2, GS 22 etc are mentioned in Vatican Council II.They were examples of salvation outside the Church for the liberal theologians.
Now there is a new understanding of EENS. It is EENS with exceptions.This error was accepted also by Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X.It is the same for Corrado Gnerre.
But if there are no literal cases of BOD, BOB and I.I how can Corado Gnerre discuss EENS, with possibilities being exceptions? Possibilities exist only in our mind. Possibilities cannot cotradict EENS.
How can he discuss this issue theologically with the New Theology which is irrational ?
There are no cases of the BOD, BOB and I.I and he is discussing theological conditions and categories as if they are real, as if he can read the mind of God.
There are no known cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church and he postulates that non Catholics can be saved in their religion through Jesus and the Church. This is the New Theology which accomodates BOD, BOB and I.I as visible exceptions to EENS.
How can he create exceptions to the centuries old teaching of EENS with hypothetical cases mentioned in Vatican Council II ?
It would also mean that the Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX and the Catechism of Pope Pius X have mentioned exceptions to the Athanasius Creed and EENS, for him? Tradition contradicts Tradition.
Then if there is one exception there can be many.So Bishop Robert Barron,among others, says we can have a reasonable hope that most men are saved.His reference is Vatican Council II( with exceptions). He reads hypothetical cases as being examples of non Catholics saved and known to him. Possibilities in his mind are real.It is the same with Corrado Gnerre. -Lionel Andrades
1
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment