Warren Goddard, a writer on extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) states :
Corruption of dogma:
In 2017, Brother Andre Marie affirmed the principle 'Outside Church No Salvation' must be interpreted according to the official doctrine of the Church”.
In 1949, the Holy Office letter to Archbishop Cushing said “ No Salvation Outside the Church dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it”.
Yes. I accuse Br.Andre of failing to accept EENS dogma as stated. Only yes or no is possible.
Lionel: “ No Salvation Outside the Church dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it”. When I read this line from the the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO) I interpret the dogma EENS according to the popes before the 1930's. Perhaps Brother Andre Marie MICM and the St. Benedict Center do the same.
However this line was mentioned by the officials of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF), Vatican, in their communication with Brother Andre Marie in 2016. The CDF letter is posted on the website of the Diocese of Manchester, USA.
For the CDF, this line refers to the popes since Pius XII and especially Pope Paul VI after Vatican Council II.
For me the popes before the 1930's interpreted the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) as referring to hypothetical cases only.So they are not exceptions to EENS. They are not exceptions to EENS for me.
But for the CDF, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (847-848) is an exception to EENS. Since it is an exception to EENS it must be non hypothetical, real in the present time and an objective example of salvation outside the Church. So the archbishops and the cardinal at the CDF reject the traditional strict interpretation of the dogma EENS.
So the CDF interprets this line as did Pope Paul VI and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.
So we have two interpretations.
Brother Andre Marie in his communication with the CDF also cites this line. I would give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he interprets this line like me and the popes over the centuries and not like the CDF. However he could clarify this issue.
In 1949 the Holy Office postulated exceptions to EENS. So they implied that there were visible and known non Catholics saved outside the Church. Invisible people cannot be exceptions.This is an objective mistake.
When St.Thomas Aquinas referred to the man in the forest this was a hypothetical case for me and so it did not contradict the saints support for the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS. But the liberals cite the man in the forest and suggest that the saint was also saying that the man in invincible ignorance was an exception to EENS.
So invincible ignorane, is not an exception to EENS for me but it would be an exception to EENS for the CDF and the Lefebvrists.
When the popes and saints refer to the baptism of desire this is a reference to hypothetical cases only, for me. This I believe is how it was also before the 1930's. But on the website of the sedevacantist community of Bishop Mark Pivarunas, there is a long list of baptism of desire cases presented as exceptions to EENS. So the bishop implies that these are visible and non hypothetical cases for them to become exceptions to EENS. This would be irrational for the popes over the ages.
When people refer to St. Emerentiana being saved outside the Church without the baptism of water and instead through martyrdom( baptism of blood) they imply that she is an exception to the norm( faith and baptism) and she is a visible case, of salvation outside the Church. This implies that someone saw her in Heaven without the baptism of water. Again this is irrational.She can be accepted as a saint but no one on earth could have seen her literally in Heaven without the Sacrament of Baptism.
Similarly in the practical realm all need the baptism of water for salvation.There is justification with the baptism of water only.This was the teaching of the Council of Trent. However if someone is saved with the baptism of desire, mentioned by Trent, justified with the baptism of desire,for me it is hypothetical and invisible always. We cannot say that any particular person in 2020 for example will be die outside the Church and will be justified.The baptism of desire always refers to an unknown person.
Similarly we have to read the LOHO making the distinction between what is subjective and objective, invisible and visible, hypothetical or defacto known in the present times.
When some one interprets BOD,BOB and I.I as being objective cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church, I call it Cushingism.
When BOD, BOB and I.I are seen as only hypothetical cases and not physically visible non Catholics saved outside the Church, I call it Feeneyism.
“ No Salvation Outside the Church dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it”.
We can interpret this line with Feeneyism or Cushingism and the conclusion would be different.May be Warren Goddard thinks Brother Andre Marie interprets this line with Cushingism just like the ecclesiastics at the CDF.
When the CDF asked Brother Andre Marie to interpret CCC 847-848 as an exception to EENS there was no correction from the St. Benedict Center. Brother Andre Marie did not announce that he interpreted CCC 847-848 with Feeneyism.He left this point vague in his report of the Doctrinal Beliefs of the St.Benedict Center.
There are a few points in the Doctrinal Beliefs of the St. Benedict Center which could be clarified.1
-Lionel Andrades
1
Posts
