Obviously it's an error ... condemned of course by Pius IX in the Syllabus.
Tragically, Archbishop Lefebvre articulated exactly this error in his "Open Letter to Confused Catholics". Unfortunately, that part only confused Catholics even more.
Yes, I just reread the Syllabus again yesterday. This error struck me because in my experience many traditional Catholics including many priests believe it. Even Lefebvre seemed to teach it and Fellay seemed to teach it and as the Dimonds point out all the time, most of the traditional Catholic priests they have talked to seem to teach this also. So I asked if traditional Catholics thought it was an error or if they believed in it.
Yes, there's cognitive dissonance of some kind here. Many Traditional Catholics are familiar with the
Syllabus. In fact, the FIRST course we were required to take at the SSPX Seminary in Winona was a class called "Acts of the Magisterium", taught by Bishop Williamson in which we read and studied all the anti-Modernist Magisterial acts, including the
Syllabus.
What I gather is that most Traditional Catholics read this and nod their heads, having in their minds the vision of those abominable ecuŠ¼enical gatherings such as at Assisi and think that it condemns things like that.
But if you read it, what is says is that there CANNOT BE SALVATION except in the Catholic religion. Gasp ... it's "Feeneyism" (even though it makes no explicit reference to Baptism per se).
+Lefebvre EXPLICITLY articulated this EXACT error in his Open Letter and elsewhere.
If men are saved in Protestantism, Buddhism or Islam, they are saved by the Catholic Church, by the grace of Our Lord, by the prayers of those in the Church, by the blood of Our Lord as individuals, perhaps through the practice of their religion, perhaps of what they understand in their religion, but not by their religionā¦
But Pius IX condemned that anyone can be saved IN their religion. +Lefebvre changes Catholic teaching by saying that EENS really means there's no salvation except BY the Catholic Church, rather than no salvation except IN the Catholic Church. He reduces the Church to merely an instrumental cause of salvation.
The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.
The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it.
Again with the "by" vs. "in" distinction.
So now "men of good will" are saved, i.e. that natural good will is salvific. That's at least semi-Pelagianism.
Now most Trads will spit nails at me for suggesting that their infallible saintly hero may have misfired on something. But it's just the hard truth.
And if you believe that all these men of good will outside the Church can be saved, there's ZERO doctrinal basis to oppose Vatican II. That's why the Trad movement is in a state of stagnation and erosion, sliding inexorably back towards the Conciliar Church.
So there's no salvation outside the Church of "good will".
Topic: Is this an error? (Read 2729 times)