Dead-man-walking premise?

[Roguish]

While reading this article about Pope Francis’ stance toward and relations with traditional catholicism, I stumbled into some comments (at the bottom of that article) that speak of a “false premise” and a “fantasy premise” used by some (Tradionalists or other – I can’t make out) in interpreting certain documents that were the fruit of VC2.

This “premise” seems to have something to do with the interpretation of the Church as visible vs. invisible, and the “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” dogma, and is called the “dead man walking” premise by another commenter farther down.

All of this is discussed (on that particular webpage anyway) in a tone that suggests that this “dead man walking” premise is some well-known position or view on certain matters relevant to VC2 and/or traditionalist catholicism, but I haven’t the slightest idea what this “premise” is, nor have I been able to find an explanation of it anywhere on the web.

Can someone help dispell my ignorance?

Thanks all.

 

[xzereus]

This is referring to the dogma “extra ecclesiam nulla salus,” and the idea that some can be saved without being visibly within the Church and in submission to the Pope. Those who reject the so called “dead man walking” premise reject the idea that men can be saved by either the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance.

By this view, “dead men” are those who reside outside the Church either by their heresies or by their lack of a physical baptism with water. The word “walking” is meant to imply that these dead men somehow live, or obtain life in heaven, despite being dead. The name itself is meant to show that the traditionalists (normally spouted off by sedevacantists or those who are even too traditional for the SSPX) view the whole idea as absurd, as the idea of a dead man walking is contrary even to itself and irrational.

Less extreme rejections of this poorly named “dead man walking” premise may reject the idea not in principle, but as an official teaching. People with this less extreme opinion may believe that baptism of desire, baptism of blood, and invincible ignorance are mere speculations and, as such, should not be taught officially. In other words, while it may be true that some are saved by these means, this is only for God to know since it rests outside the realm of the ordinary means to salvation, and it is ill-advised to teach such ideas since some may come to believe that being Catholic is not at all important for salvation.

Some who reject this premise would say that anyone who supports the “exceptions” of invincible ignorance and threefold baptism are believers in the “dead man walking premise.” Some others would claim that only those who take this to the extreme believe the in the premise, e.g. “We can hope that all will be saved, regardless of religion.”

This is not a widely used term. I believe the name to be restricted to a small group, perhaps even this one individual (who has posted similar things on other websites and forums). Still, the premise in concept exists in the minds of many other ultra-traditionalists.

 

[Roguish]

That’s a very helpful explanation. Thanks very much, I appreciate it.