Fr.Peter Scott was also the Rector of the SSPX's Holy Cross Seminary in Australia.
Bishop Raymond Boland cited magisterial documents which affirmed the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as interpreted by Church Councils, popes, saints, Vatican Council II, Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Dominus Iesus.The Church has not changed its interpretation of the dogma. http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/11/bishop-emeritus-raymond-jboland-of.html
In reading Church documents we must be aware of a built-in dejure-defacto analysis, other wise we will be against the Principle of Non Contradiction.
Dominus Iesus,like the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 is saying that de facto every one needs to enter the Church with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation.Dejure, in principle, as a concept for us and known only to God non Catholics can be saved ‘in certain circumstances’.De facto of course there are no exceptions known to us. The words defacto-dejure are mentioned in the introduction to Dominus Iesus.
For Peter Scott writes:
This document, written to combat relativism and indifferentism that teach that one religion is as good as another (§22), rightly condemns the errors that God can perform a salvific action outside the mediation of Christ (§14), or that the Catholic Church can be considered as but one amongst many ways of salvation (§21). This is all very orthodox and consistent with the doctrine that “Outside the Church there is no salvation”.
De facto every one needs to enter the Catholic Church with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.
Fr.Peter Scott then observes:
However, this very same document also teaches the exact theses that it attempts to condemn. For it teaches that false religions are “participated forms of mediation”(§14). How can there be any mediation outside of Christ and His mystical body? It teaches that particularly in schismatic churches, “the church of Christ is present and operative” (§17). How can the church of Christ be present and operative outside the Catholic Church, which is the only true church of Christ? The heretical churches that do not even have the Blessed Sacrament are declared to be in a “certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church” (§17).
So in principle we can accept the salvific action of Jesus Christ with and through his Spirit beyond the visible boundaries of the Church to all humanity, while we know that for salvation the Church is needed, (Dominus Iesus 20 ). De facto, in reality, everyone with no exception needs to enter the Church for salvation.In principle, hypothetically we can accept that non Catholics can be saved indicated by Dominus Iesus 14 and 17.
De jure, in principle ‘in certain circumstances’ (Letter of the Holy Office 1949) and known to God only there can be non Catholics saved. Known to God only there can be ‘the Church of Christ present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church (Dominus Iesus 17).There can be ‘participated forms of mediation of different kinds and degrees’(Dominus Iesus 14) unknown to us. Known only to God and de facto unknown to us ‘the salvific action of Jesus Christ, with and through his Spirit, extends beyond the visible boundaries of the Church to all humanity.’
De jure, in principle ‘in certain circumstances’ (Letter of the Holy Office 1949) and known to God only there can be non Catholics saved. Known to God only there can be ‘the Church of Christ present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church (Dominus Iesus 17).There can be ‘participated forms of mediation of different kinds and degrees’(Dominus Iesus 14) unknown to us. Known only to God and de facto unknown to us ‘the salvific action of Jesus Christ, with and through his Spirit, extends beyond the visible boundaries of the Church to all humanity.’
If we do not use the de jure de facto analysis not only will it be irrational but the document would seem full of ‘internal contradictions’. It would be using a defacto-defacto analysis and this would be contrary to the Princciple of Non Contradiction.
( See the difference! http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/08/see-difference.html#links )
Lumen Gentium 16 (LG 16) does not contradict the infallible teaching. Lumen Gentium 16 does not refer tosome known person being saved explicitly in invincible ignorance. Those who will be judged with a good conscience are not explicitly known to us (1). If one assumes that LG 16 refers to explicit baptism of desire then there would be trouble also with the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257. (2)
CCC 1257 states that the Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the Baptism of water and also says God is not limited to the Sacraments. There could be some, or many, saved without the Sacrament of Baptism.
It would violate the Principle of Non Contradiction. It would mean de facto everyone needs the Baptism of Water and Catholic Faith to go to Heaven (AG 7,CCC 1257) and de facto there can also be people saved without the Sacrament of the Baptism of water (LG 16, CCC 1257). It does not make sense.
However if they considered LG 16 as referring to de jure, implicit salvation, something that we can accept in principle but which is only known to God ( it is only explicit for God and we do not know a single case of someone saved in invincible ignorance) then it would not violate the Principle on Non Contradiction. It would mean de facto every one needs to explicitly enter the Catholic Church while de jure, in principle there could be some people saved with implicit baptism of desire,invincible ignorance or a good cosncience.etc.
There is no explicit or implicit Baptism of desire that we can know of reason tells us. Neither the past popes or saints have referred to an explicit Baptism of desire. Neither does the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Since we know that there can be no explicitly known case of a non Catholic saved in invincible ignorance LG 16, is referring to something hypothetical. A probability. A possibility.
Similarly with Dominus Iesus we can avoid a seeming ‘internal contradiction’ if we are aware of the built in de facto- dejure analysis.
If we use a defacto-defacto analysis then it would mean Catholic Faith and the baptism of water is the ordinary means of salvation (LG 14,AG 7) and also LG 16, invincible ignorance is the ordinary means of salvation. Irrational!
-Lionel Andrades
_______________________________________
1.
_______________________________________
1.
2.Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.-Lumen Gentium 16, Vatican Council II.
CCC 1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation... God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.
Posts
