Tuesday, June 5, 2012

Fr. Francois Laisney, Fr. Peter Scott like Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J is saying that the Catholic Church is no more Exclusivist ecclesiocentric: SSPX priests and liberals agree that there are explicit exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma outside the church no salvation



Exclusivist ecclesiocentrism—the fruit of a specific theological system or of a mistaken understanding of the phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus—is no longer defended by Catholic theologians after the clear statements of Pius XII and Vatican Council II on the possibility of salvation for those who do not belong visibly to the Church (cf, e.g., LG 16; GS 22).-International Theological Commission, Christianity and the World Religions 1997.

62…A theological evaluation of the religions was impeded over a long time because of the principle extra ecclesiam nulla salus, understood in an exclusivist sense.- Christianity and the World Religions.

Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.j, the Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Vatican and Frs. Francois Laisney and Peter Scott of the SSPX do not make the principle,in fact distinction when reading the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.


59. The Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston (1949) offers further specifications. “To gain eternal salvation, it is not always required that a person be incorporated in reality (reapse) as a member of the Church, but it is necessary that one belong to it at least in desire and longing (voto et desiderio). It is not always necessary that this desire be explicit as it is with catechumens. When one is invincibly ignorant, God also accepts an implicit desire, so called because it is contained in the good disposition of soul by which a person wants his or her will to be conformed to God’s will”.-The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without Baptism-2007 ITC.

In principle “To gain eternal salvation, it is not always required that a person be incorporated in reality (reapse) as a member of the Church, but it is necessary that one belong to it at least in desire and longing (voto et desiderio). In fact, de facto, every one with no known exception needs to enter the Church as a member for salvation.

In principle and known to God only “It is not always necessary that this desire be explicit as it is with catechumens. When one is invincibly ignorant, God also accepts an implicit desire, so called because it is contained in the good disposition of soul by which a person wants his or her will to be conformed to God’s will”. Explicitly, every one needs to be a member of the Church for salvation and we do not know any implicit cases saved in the present times.


58. In the face of new problems and situations and of an exclusive interpretation of the adage: “salus extra ecclesiam non est”,[88] the magisterium, in recent times, has articulated a more nuanced understanding as to the manner in which a saving relationship with the Church can be realized. The Allocution of Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quadam (1854) clearly states the issues involved: “It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it, will perish in the flood. On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who live in ignorance of the true religion, if such ignorance be invincible, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord”-The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without Baptism-2007 ITC.

Defacto, explicitly “ the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it, will perish in the flood.” in the present times." In principle (dejure) “ it must likewise be held as certain that those who live in ignorance of the true religion, if such ignorance be invincible, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord”.

We have to use the in principle, in fact explaination because of the confusion caused by Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits at Boston. They first created confusion with the interpretation of the Letter of the Holy Office and their relationship with the cardinal at the Holy Office and then they included this confusion in the texts of Vatican Council II. They did  not realize that the baptism of desire etc is not an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.

The SSPX priest Francois Laisney like Cardinal Ladaria has built upon this error and even written a book, ‘Is Feeneyism Catholic ?’

The SSPX has in general made the error their own and have used it to interpret Vatican Council II as a liberal Council.They all assume that those saved in invincible ignorance and a good conscience (LG 16) are explicit exceptions to the dogma and AG 7.

If they understood that there were no explicit exceptions then Vatican Council II would not be seen as an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma. This would mean Vatican Council II is in agreement with the dogma. So Vatican Council II is really in agreement with Tradition. This is the hermeneutic of continuity. There are no doctrinal differences. Vatican Council II is in agreement with the SSPX position on ecumenism, other religions and religious liberty.

It is the Vatican-side,Cardinal Luiz Ladaria etc, who are interpreting the  Council as a break from Tradition since they are not aware of the Richard Cushing Error.This is the hermeneutic of rupture.

The Church has been and still is exclusive ecclesiocentric.In fact ecclesiocentric always meant exclusivity.-Lionel Andrades

___________________________________________


VATICAN COUNCIL II DOES NOT CONTRADICT ITSELF: LUMEN GENTIUM 14 AND AD GENTES 7 DO NOT CONTRADICT ITSELF :NEITHER ARE THEY CONTRADICTED BY LUMEN GENTIUM 16
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/06/vatican-council-ii-does-not-contradict.html#links


Fr. Francois Laisney indicates that for the SSPX the Church is no more ecclesiocentric since there are explicit exceptions to the dogma on salvation
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/06/fr-francois-laisney-indicates-that-for.html#links