Tuesday, November 13, 2012

How can zero cases of something be considered exceptions ?- John Martignoni

The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary are not answering the question: Do we know any one on earth saved with the baptism of desire?

Implicitly how can the baptism of desire be an exception to the dogma on salvation?


A supporter of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary says that they completely reject the baptism of desire since if they accepted it in principle, even in a single case, it would contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It seems for him the baptism of desire is always explicit and he never makes the distinction between implicit and explicit baptism of desire.

He writes:
Let's take a simple declarative statement.

"There exists in Heaven a soul who died outside the Church."

The statement is either true or false. We might not know the answer, but it is either true or false, right?

I am certain that the Slaves and Fr. Feeney would say "false." I certainly say "false." (1)

The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary mean that a person cannot go to Heaven without the baptism of water-just the baptism of desire is no enough.They mean that a person can go to Heaven with implicit baptism of desire followed by the baptism of water and this would not contradict the Catholic teaching that every one needs the baptism of water for salvation.

But what if someone makes a declarative statement.


"There exists an implicit desire known only to God"


The statement is either true or false. We might not know the answer, but it is either true or false, right?


I say it is true since the Council of Trent and so many magisterial sources mention implicit desire. If it results in justification or justification and salvation, it is still only known to God. So it is irrelevant to the literal interpretation of Fr. Leonard Feeney.


Even if there exists a soul who died outside the church and it would be known to God only, it does not contradict the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which says all alive on earth need to convert into the Church,  since we would not know who this case is and so it is not an exception to the dogma.

So implicit baptism of desire is compatible with Fr.Leonard Feeney's position.


The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary are not answering the question: Do we know any one on earth saved with the baptism of desire?


Implicitly how can the baptism of desire be an exception to the dogma on salvation?


So when Jeffrey Mirus of Catholic Culture criticizes Fr.Leonard Feeney for rejecting the baptism of desire does it make sense? Why do the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary not tell him that implicit baptism of desire is not an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma?


Can the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Still River, Mass accept implicit baptism of desire along with the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus?-Lionel Andrades

1
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/brother-thomas-augustine-micm.html

JEFF MIRUS,EWTN

Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN) and Jeff Mirus owner of Trinity Communications could  stop maligning Fr.Leonard Feeney on the on line report Tragic Errors of Fr.Leonar Feeney.Since, we do not know any case of the baptism of desire and so the baptism of desire is not an explicit exception to the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation. The report on the Internet placed for EWTN by Trinity Communications, criticizes Fr.Leonard Feeney for not accepting the baptism of desire as a known exception to the dogma on salvation.

The baptism of desire is known only to God, so it is irrelevant to Fr.Leonard Feeney's position on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

How can Jeff Mirus and EWTN use this irrationality to malign a good Catholic priest?

It is false for Jeff Mirus and EWTN to imply that they can see the dead alive on earth saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance?

They should pull down that report and issue a clarification saying Catholics cannot see the dead on earth. So these cases (baptism of desire etc) are not exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Implicit baptism of desire is compatabile with the 'strict interpretation' of the dogma.They do not contradict the dogma on exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church.

Their report indicates that Catholics can see the dead saved and these cases are exceptions to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney. It is not even clear if they mean that they, Mirus and the EWTN Management, can see the dead on earth.-Lionel Andrades

FINALLY THE SSPX HAS A TRADITIONAL APOLOGETICS OF VATICAN COUNCIL II THEY SHOULD USE IT

Ad Gentes 7 says all need to convert into the Chruch for salvation and LG 16 , AG 11,LG 8 are 'zero cases' according to the apologist John Martigioni

John Martigioni has opened the path to a traditional and rational interpretation of Vatican Council II and the SSPX should take it.

He has indicated that the present interpretation of Vatican Council II is false when it uses a false and irrational premise. The same premise is being used by BIshop Bernard Fellay.

Since the SSPX assumes that Vatican Council II contradicts the traditional teaching on other religions this is a clear sign that it is using the false premise of the visible dead saved.It assumes that those saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance are not 'zero cases', as Martigioni says,  but that they are known cases in 2012.So they are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

This is also the misunderstanding of Archbishop Gerhard Muller and Archbishop Augustine Di Noia and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,Vatican.They expressed this error of 'zero cases alive in 2012', in their interviews with the National Catholic Register when asked about extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Archbishop Muller indicated that invincible ignorance was an explicit exception to the dogma and Archbishop Di Noia said grace in Lumen Gentium referred to an exception(LG 8). Martigioni is saying that invincible ignorance and elements of sanctification are not known exceptions to the dogma or to Ad Gentes 7 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.

The SSPX should comment on Martigioni's rational statement.

In the past the SSPX wanted the Vatican to  show them a traditional interpretation of the Council, with the hermeneutic of continuity  but there was no theologian available. The theologian Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J, Secretary of the CDF, assumes those saved in invincible ignorance etc are known cases in 2012 and so are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.(See Christianity and the World Religions, International Theological Commission).So he could not be expected to support Tradition.

John Martigioni, who is now also the Director of Evangelisation in the Diocese of Birmingham,Alabama,USA (1) has answered two important questions which the CDF has been avoiding.

He has said that in the year 2012 we cannot know any one saved in invincible ignorance, the baptism of desire, a good conscience, seeds of the word (AG11), imperfect communion with the Church. Also that these cases annot be considered exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors. This opens up a new interpretation of the Council ,one which is also rational and does not claim that we can see ghosts or that the Holy Spirit expects us to see the visible dead.

Even if we could know, in this lifetime, which we can’t, that someone has been saved even though they were invincibly ignorant, or if someone has been saved through the Baptism of Desire, etc., it would not be an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is because they would be saved through the Church by some extraordinary means known unto God alone. So, it would still be that outside the Church, there is no salvation. -Martigioni
A member of the Diocesan Staff under Bishop Robert J.Baker he observed ‘How can zero cases of something be considered exceptions?’

I asked:You would also agree that since implicit intention, invincible ignorance and a good conscience(LG 16) are possibilities mentioned in Vatican Council II and not defacto,known exceptions to the dogma, so Vatican Council II in these cases does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?

He replied,'Yes, I agree that none of those things would contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus.'
-Lionel Andrades

1
Director of the Office of the New Evangelization and Stewardship,Diocese of Birmingham in Alabama,USA
2121 3rd Ave. N.,P.O. Box 12047,Birmingham, AL 35202-2047,USA
Phone: ( 205) 776-7163

Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Implicit intention, invincible ignorance and a good conscience (LG 16) in Vatican Council II do not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus –John Martigioni

IRRESPECTIVE IF THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE RESULTS IN JUSTIFICATION OR JUSTIFICATON AND SALVATION IT IS NOT AN EXPLICIT EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS

JOHN MARTIGIONI SAYS VATICAN COUNCIL II IS IN AGREEMENT WITH EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS AND THE SYLLABUS: WHEN WILL THE SSPX AND THE VATICAN CURIA ACKNOWLEDGE IT?