According to the apologist Robert Sungenis invincible ignorance and implicit desire are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II since these cases are visible to us in real life . For him this is the teaching of the Holy Spirit.
In communication with me , he maintains the position that 'the Holy Spirit did not teach a factual error. He did not divinely inspire Vatican II. Vatican II was written by men who, by their own admission, sometimes wrote ambiguous statements that could be understood in more than one way'.However it is the teaching of the Holy Spirit, for him, that even though 'all' ' need faith and baptism' for salvation(AG 7,Vatican Council II) there are known, visible to us exceptions. He does not think this position is irrational.
The Americqn Catholic apologist does not interpret invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire, according to tradition but as a break with Tradition, a break with the dogma on salvation and the Syllabus of Errors.
Robert Sungenis says 'Vatican II doesn't teach error regarding "religions and ecumenism." If you believe there is an unadulterated, unambiguous and purposeful error in Vatican II regarding these subjects, then you need to prove it, not just state it.' Yet I am not saying there is an error in Vatican Council II. I am saying there can be two interpretations of the Council on this subject. One is rational the other is not.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 mentions being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire but does not state that these cases are visible to us. One has to wrongly assume it.Neither does Vatican Council II claim that these cases are visible to us or that they are exceptions to the dogma on salvation or AG 7 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.
I mentioned to Robert Sungenis that 'We agree that Vatican Council II does not teach error regarding other religions and ecumenism and that God does not make mistakes, the Holy Spirit does not make a mistake however I also believe that invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are irrelevant to the dogma on salvation and this would be the rational teaching of the Holy Spirit. This was the teaching over the centuries. They knew that invincible ignorance cases were invisible and so did not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus'.
I asked Robert Sungenis 'How could God say that we can see the dead, that we can name those non Catholics now in Heaven. How can we see those saved with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance, how can God say that those saved with 'elements of sanctification' are visible to the physical eye ?'.He responded 'God didn't pose this scenario. It is your own invention. Catholic doctrine says nothing about "naming" people in heaven as the criterion of whether the doctrine is true or false.' I think we were on different wavelengths.
Then he comes back with a surprise and states 'in no place does Vatican II deny the doctrine of EENS(extra ecclesiam nulla salus).' Confusing! If those saved in invincible ignorance(LG 16) or 'elements of sanctification' (LG 8) are visible to the physical eye, if we personally know these people on earth, then Vatican Council II contradicts extra ecclesiam nulla salus.There would be ambiguity in Vatican Council II.
I mentioned,'Once again we agree that Vatican Council II does not deny the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.' However I need to clarify.
'For me Vatican Council II does not deny the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as interpreted by Fr.Leonard Feeney . Are you also saying this ? Perhaps I asked this question in my last e-mail to you.
'This is important.
'For me too every one needs to convert into the Catholic Church in the present times and there are no known exceptions.
'This is what you too may have said in the series on Outside the Church There is No Salvation (Youtube).
'For me these cases exist as a possibility but they can never be known. So they can never be exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
'For you they are exceptions and so here the confusion arises.
'If they are exceptions then it would mean that we personally know these cases.Otherwise how could they be exceptions to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
'This was the error of the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits there.'
Robert said 'If you believe it does, then you are required to find a statement in which Vatican II clearly says: "The doctrine EENS was taught before in the Catholic Church, but we declare it was in error, and we reject that doctrine." I'm not interested in your interpretation of EENS, or your interpretation of Vatican II's statements that you think are denying EENS. Unless you have a clear and unambiguous statement from Vatican II as I described above, you don't have a case.'
Lionel:
'Here Vatican Council II is in agreement with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known to Church Councils, popes and saints.
Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. -Ad Gentes 7.
In a series of talks on the subject No Salvation Outside the Church available on Youtube Robert Sungenis has said that every one needs to enter the Church except for those in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. Except for these cases? Do we know any of these cases in 2013? Does any Magisterial text say that we know any of these cases ? Why do they have to be mentioned as exceptions?
Robert clarifies,'Let me say it again. I used "exception" in the sense of someone, because of circumstances that prohibit them, of not being able to go through the normal means to receive salvation and/or membership in the Catholic Church.
'I used "exception" in the sense of someone, because of circumstances that prohibit them, of not being able to go through the normal means to receive salvation and/or membership in the Catholic Church.' So this is a possibility. Someone in such a case could be saved. We agree.
'However in my last e-mail perhaps I mentioned that these cases would only be known to God. They are invisible for us and visible only to God.Since they are personally not known to us, can they be exceptions to the dogma on salvation and the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney ?
'So your mentioning it would be irrelevant to the dogma. The dogma cannot have exceptions.
'So on the issue of other religions and ecumenism there is no rational basis for any ambiguity and yet we see so much of it.
Robert responded 'I gave you a rational basis above, but you simply ignored it in this summation of my view.'
Robert added. 'I used "exception" in the sense of someone, because of circumstances that prohibit them, of not being able to go through the normal means to receive salvation and/or membership in the Catholic Church.
Lionel:
This cannot be a rational basis since if there is an exception it would mean these cases now dead and saved in Heaven are visible to you. This would be irrational. We cannot see the dead. So how could this be a rational basis for saying there are exceptions ?
I was hoping that you would answer the questions I asked you in my last e-mail so that I could quote you. Over the years I have been sending you material on this subject hoping you would write on it.
Yesterday I mentioned ( in my e-mail) :
'We agree that:
1. We cannot see the dead in Heaven.
2.We agree that we do not know any one saved with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance in 2013.
These are universal truths. One does not have to be a Catholic and it is understood.
This is a given. Irrespective of ones ideology etc.
In the Introduction to Dominus Iesus the church refers to the words defacto and de jure(in principle). So Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was aware of this way of thinking when approving the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Without using the defacto and dejure reasoning on this issue there will be a lot of confusion.
For instance Ad Gentes 7 itself would be confusing and contradictory to the Principle of Non Contradiction. It would be saying all need baptism for salvation but some people (defacto) also do not need the baptism of water for salvation'.
'Sorry, Lionel, I don't agree with your logic here',. said Robert Sungenis,' You are cleverly trying to find a circuitous way to make baptism absolute, but it is a specious logic all your own and not one the Church has ever used. The Church simply has no official and dogmatic statement that makes water baptism absolute. '
Lionel:
If you use the defacto-dejure reasoning mentioned in Dominus Iesus then baptism is 'absolute' only defacto, in the present times.While there could be a person in principle( dejure) who is saved without the baptism of water.
Similarly when CCC 1257 says the Church 'knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water', it means defacto the church knows of ....'. While CCC 1257 also says 'God is not limited to the Sacraments', meaning in principle(de jure) a person could be saved without the Sacraments.
Without the defacto-dejure analysis your interpretation of CCC 1257 on The Necessity of Baptism would contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction.
Robert:
'Your appeal to Ad gentes is disingenuous and out of context. Here is paragraph 7:
7. This missionary activity derives its reason from the will of God, "who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, Himself a man, Jesus Christ, who gave Himself as a ransom for all" (1 Tim. 2:45), "neither is there salvation in any other" (Acts 4:12). Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body.
For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door.
RS: If this was all Ad gentes 7 said, you might have a stronger argument, but it continues with these words:
"Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."(17) '
Lionel:
'Correct. This paragraph does not contradict the earlier one you cited.
We do not know (defacto) any one in 2013 who was aware or not aware and was saved or not saved. If there was a case of someone in invincible ignorance saved we would not know who he is in the present times. This would be known only to God. These cases are invisible for us.So this paragraph does not contradict AG 7 quoted above.
On the other hand if you did not use the visible-invisible reasoning, you would be contradicting the Principle of Non Contradiction in your interpretation of AG 7, CCC 1257 etc. You would be saying defacto every one needs Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation and defacto there could be a known case, visible to us in 2013, who does not need faith and baptism for salvation.This is also the common error being made today'.
Robert Sungenis:
'RS: The all important clause "who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary," was put there in accord with all the other instances in Catholic theology in which it is said that those who are unaware of the requirement of baptism and submission to the Church are not deprived of salvation due to that ignorance.'
Lionel:
'Those who are unaware can be saved we agree here.
Those who are unaware and who are saved are personally visible or invisible to us?
This was the question I asked you earlier.
If you say that they are visible to us then this passage contradicts the earlier passage of AG 7'.
Robert Sungenis:
Then Ad gentes continues with even more qualification:
"Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6), yet a necessity lies upon the Church (1 Cor. 9:16), and at the same time a sacred duty, to preach the Gospel. And hence missionary activity today as always retains its power and necessity."
'RS: Ad gentes deliberately leaves out the word "baptism" in the clause "those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him." It only requires faith, and it is for a specific group, the "inculpably ignorant" or what we call the "invincibly ignorant."
Conversely, in your below sentence you say "Let me put it this way. Ad gentes 7 indicates all need faith and baptism for salvation." But you left out the qualification of Ad gentes 7 in regards to the inculpably ignorant.'
Lionel:
'Good point!
All need faith and baptism for salvation (AG 7) and those who are saved in inculpable ignorance(AG 7) are invisible to us.You do not know any such case in PA(Harrisburg,Pennsylavania).So how can someone whom you do not know, whom you cannot see be an exception ?
So if AG 7(Inculpable ignorance) is invisible it is irrelevant to AG 7 saying all need faith and baptism for salvation.
If AG 7 (inculpable ignorance) was visible to you, if you could see the dead- saved; if you personally knew any such case, then AG 7 would contradict itself.
In a sense we are back to your original article on Cardinal Walter Kaspar(The Bellarmine Report) and two ways of interpreting Vatican Council II.
For Cardinal Walter Kaspar Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance) is visible and so is an exception to Ad Gentes 7 and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.He writes off the dogma. This is irrational and contradicting the Principle of Non Contradiction.' I accept an invisible-to- us baptism of desire etc and reject a visible-to-us baptism of desire and being known invincible ignorance cases. Cardinal Kaspar and Robert Sungenis accept a visible to us baptism of desire.For them these cases are explicit. For me they are implicit.For me the magisterial documents mention implicit desire etc and assume that we will interpret them rationally.In Sungenis and Kaspar we have a traditionalist and liberal making the same factual and objective error of being able to see the dead on earth.They then base their theology on this error and assume that this is Catholic doctrine.
-Lionel Andrades
(First Saturday)
Robert A. Sungenis (born 1955) is an American Catholic apologist. He is the founder of The Bellarmine Report, renamed from the Bellarmine Theological Forum in 2011. He is the president of CAI Publishing, Inc. Sungenis is known for his apologetic works critiquing the Protestant doctrines of sola fide and sola scriptura.(Facebook)
Posts
