Church has not retracted extra ecclesiam nulla salus states Christ to the World magazine (May-June 1999 issue) published by the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate.
To invite the sedevacantists Most Holy Family Monastery (MHFM) into the Catholic Church, we first have to show them Church texts which uphold extra ecclesiam nulla salus, just as they the MHFM explain it.
We have to show them with pre-Vatican Council II, Vatican Council II and post Vatican Council II texts that there has been no change in the Church’s understanding of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
There is no Church text which is the basis for ‘a development of doctrine’ or a change of this ex cathedra dogma.
The MHFM believes that the Church is in apostasy and has thrown away extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Yet Magisterial documents show it is not true.
When Magisterial texts are analysed with the terms de facto and de jure, as used in the Introduction to Dominus Iesus, everything becomes clear.
The Magisterial texts will then indicate that the Catholic Church has not given up what the secular media calls ‘the rigorist interpretation’ of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Here is the de facto-dejure analysis which is important for dialogue with the MHFM and other sedevacantists.
Pope Pius IX in an Allocution, December 9, 1854 wrote (source not cited):
Pope Pius IX is saying de facto everyone needs to enter the Church, the only Ark of Salvation and de jure there can be people saved with invincible ignorance etc." We hold as of faith, that out of the Apostolic Roman Church there is no salvation; that she is the only ark of safety, and whosoever is not in her perishes in the deluge; we must also, on the other hand, recognize with certainty that those who are in invincible ignorance of the true religion are not guilty for this in the eye of the Lord. And who will presume to mark out the limits of this ignorance according to the character and diversity of peoples, countries, minds and the rest".
This is not vague. Neither does he contradict the dogma.It is in keeping with Tradition on this subject.
St. Thomas Aquinas held that everyone with no exception needs to de facto enter the Church for salvation while de jure there could be a man in the forest in invincible ignorance.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257 on the Necessity of Baptism indicates that the Church knows of no way to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water given de facto to adults with Catholic Faith and CCC 1257 also says God is not limited to the Sacraments, so de jure we accept that a person could be saved, in principle, without the Sacrament of the baptism of water.
So if we say that everyone needs to enter the Church for salvation but there could be people in invincible ignorance or with the baptism of desire who can be saved, without formal entry into the Church, then we must clarify this statement.
We could be precise and say, everyone de facto needs to enter the Church for salvation but there could de jure (in principle) be people in invincible ignorance or with the baptism of desire who can be saved without formal entry into the Church.
Now it is rational and logical and makes sense.
If we support the same doctrinal position as the MHFM on extra ecclesiam nulla salus, and cite Vatican Council II and other Magisterial documents, then how could Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI be in error for the MHFM? The MHFM vilify the popes when the Magisterial texts issued by them affirm the ‘rigorist interpretation’ of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Similarly the communities of Fr. Leonard Feeney in the USA are now officially approved by the Vatican, and they have the same ‘rigorist interpretation’ of outside the Church there is no salvation. They are in accord with Pope John Paul II (Dominus Iesus 20) and Pope Benedict XVI, who never retracted the ex cathedra dogma when he was the Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.(Christ to the World magazine,May-June 1999 issue)
So if the Vatican recognizes the communities of Fr. Leonard Feeney then why not approach the MHFM and clarify this issue on outside the church there is no salvation.
If we showed the MHFM that we agree with them there could be no basis for their anger on the Internet and this could be the first step towards reconciliation.
When we use de facto and de jure analysis,dissenting professors at the Gregorian University, Urbaniana Universisty and other pontifical colleges and universities cannot claim 'a development of doctrine'.
For example they cannot claim that Lumen Gentium 16, Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Since LG 16 refers not to de facto but to de jure salvation. There is no de facto (explicit) invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire that we can know of.We can only accept it in principle (de jure).We do not know of a single case of the baptism of desire over the last 100 years.
So if LG 16 refers only to dejure (in principle, known only as a concept) salvation then it does not contradict 'the rigorist interpretation' of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which has only one infallible interpretation.
So where is the basis of ' a development of doctrine' with reference to Vatican Council II (LG 16) ?
The official teaching of the Catholic Church based on Magisterial texts is the same as the MHFM.
1. Extra eccleisam nulla salus means everyone with no exception needs to enter the Catholic Church for salvation (CCC 845,CCC 846 'the church is like a door', Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II,Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, Ex Cathedra etc).
2. There is no baptism of desire or invincible ignorance that we can know of, since only God can judge when this grace is given to someone 'in certain circumstances' (Letter of the Holy Office 1949).
So to begin talks with the MHFM and other sedevacantists we must be aware of the de facto and de jure analysis of Magisterial texts.
Also if we do not use this analysis, which the Church does in the Introduction to Dominus Iesus, , then we contribute to the confusion and we create differences and disunity when in reality there are no differences and we are in agreement on doctrine with the sedevacantists.
Also if we do not use this analysis we could be saying for example:
Pope Pius IX said everyone de facto needs to enter the Church for salvation and there are also those who can be saved de facto with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance and so everyone does not de facto have to enter the Church.
Does it makes sense ? Everyone needs to de facto enter but some do not!?
We could be saying:
St.Thomas Aquinas says that everyone de facto needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church for salvation and that there could be a man in the forest in invincible ignorance whom we de facto know and who could be saved.
Something is wrong somewhere?
So if the Vatican recognizes the communities of Fr. Leonard Feeney then why not approach the MHFM and clarify this issue on outside the church there is no salvation.
If we showed the MHFM that we agree with them there could be no basis for their anger on the Internet and this could be the first step towards reconciliation.
When we use de facto and de jure analysis,dissenting professors at the Gregorian University, Urbaniana Universisty and other pontifical colleges and universities cannot claim 'a development of doctrine'.
For example they cannot claim that Lumen Gentium 16, Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Since LG 16 refers not to de facto but to de jure salvation. There is no de facto (explicit) invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire that we can know of.We can only accept it in principle (de jure).We do not know of a single case of the baptism of desire over the last 100 years.
So if LG 16 refers only to dejure (in principle, known only as a concept) salvation then it does not contradict 'the rigorist interpretation' of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which has only one infallible interpretation.
So where is the basis of ' a development of doctrine' with reference to Vatican Council II (LG 16) ?
The official teaching of the Catholic Church based on Magisterial texts is the same as the MHFM.
1. Extra eccleisam nulla salus means everyone with no exception needs to enter the Catholic Church for salvation (CCC 845,CCC 846 'the church is like a door', Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II,Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, Ex Cathedra etc).
2. There is no baptism of desire or invincible ignorance that we can know of, since only God can judge when this grace is given to someone 'in certain circumstances' (Letter of the Holy Office 1949).
So to begin talks with the MHFM and other sedevacantists we must be aware of the de facto and de jure analysis of Magisterial texts.
Also if we do not use this analysis, which the Church does in the Introduction to Dominus Iesus, , then we contribute to the confusion and we create differences and disunity when in reality there are no differences and we are in agreement on doctrine with the sedevacantists.
Also if we do not use this analysis we could be saying for example:
Pope Pius IX said everyone de facto needs to enter the Church for salvation and there are also those who can be saved de facto with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance and so everyone does not de facto have to enter the Church.
Does it makes sense ? Everyone needs to de facto enter but some do not!?
We could be saying:
St.Thomas Aquinas says that everyone de facto needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church for salvation and that there could be a man in the forest in invincible ignorance whom we de facto know and who could be saved.
Something is wrong somewhere?
We could be saying.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257 on the Necessity of Baptism indicates that the Church de facto knows of no way to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water given de facto to adults with Catholic Faith and CCC 1257 also says God is not limited to the Sacraments, so de facto we accept that a person could be saved, in principle, without the Sacrament of the baptism of water.
This is contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction!
-Lionel Andrades
Posts
