National Catholic Register does not comment as Jimmy Akins, Mark Shea,Edward Pentin and Pat Archbold assume the baptism of desire ( a zero case for John Martignoni) is an exception to the dogma

The National Catholic Register does not comment or discuss how John Martignoni , the apologist on EWTN, who is also a member of the Diocesan Staff of Bishop Robert J.Baker, in the Diocese of Birmingham in Alabama, where the offices of EWTN and the NCR are situated, contradicts the article written on the EWTN website (by the late Fr.William Most).He also contradicts  the interview of Cardinal Gerhard Muller by Edward Pentin,  placed on the Vatican website.

John Martignoni says 'Zero cases of something are not exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus' .So how can there be anything in Vatican Council II which could be considered an exception to the traditional  interpretation of the dogma according to the popes, saints and Vatican Council II itself (AG 7).

 

NCR blogger Pat Archbold does not comment on this issue. Jimmy Akins and Mark Shea also assume that the baptism of desire ( a zero case for Martignoni) is an exception to the dogma. In other words it is a known, objective, seen in the flesh case, to be an exception.So for the NCR bloggers Lumen Gentium 16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance) would not be a zero case but someone personally known in 2015. So LG 16 contradicts the dogma for them.

I have  heard Patrick Madrid on EWTN Radio a  few years back also assume there are defacto, known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma on salvation.

In other words they have all changed the traditional interpretation of the dogma,accepted the irrational inference of the Marchetti 1949 letter,changed the Nicene Creed and now interpret Vatican Council II with an irrational premise and conclusion.This makes the Council a break with the past.

 

How can the National Catholic Register call itself Catholic?

Canonically the Staff Writers of the NCR cannot affirm the Nicene Creed and really mean something else.They cannot affirm a rational Vatican Council II and interpret it as a break with the past.

Legally, how can they say they are 'Catholic' and infer that Catholics must reject fundamental teachings of the Church. This is all reflected in the editorial policy of the NCR.

How can Dan Burke write about Spiritual Direction, the mystics, support pro-life issues and also interpret magisterial documents (including Vatican Council II) with an irrational proposition and conclusion.?

There has been no acknowledgment to the reports on this blog. It is as if they did not exist for them.

Fundamental questions are not being answered. Edward Pentin,Mark Shea, Jimmy Akins and others   could at least  acknowledge :-

1. We do not know of any exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus in 2015 so there are no exceptions to all needing the baptism of water in the Catholic Church this year.They cannot bump into a person in Alabama who is an exception, who will be saved without Catholic faith and the baptism of water.

2.Before 1949 there are no references in magisterial documents to the baptism of desire or being saved in invincible ignorance, as being known and visible to us, or as being an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So there is no magisteral precedent for accepting the Marchetti letter.It has also made a factual error. It assumes that the dead who are now in Heaven are living exceptions to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.

John Martignoni contradicts the Marchetti letter.

-Lionel Andrades

Mark Shea ,EWTN,NCR are formally rejecting a defined dogma, the Nicene Creed and a rational Vatican Council II with their irrationality

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/01/mark-shea-ewtnncr-are-formally.html