No correction has to be made in the text.I am affirming Vatican Council II when I hold the rigorist interpretation of the dogma

Lionel:
So you have not been able to cite any text from Quanto Conficiamur Moerore or the Council of Trent which says there are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

There is no text which says that salvation in Heaven is visible to us on earth to be exceptions to the centuries old interpretation of outside the Church there is no salvation.

There is no text in the two documents which says being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire must excude the baptism of water.
There is no text which mentions there being known salvation outside the Church.

So there are no exceptions mentioned in these two documents to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma. __________________________

 

"Please cite the text.

I don't think it says any where that there are known exceptions to the rigorist
interpretation of the dogma."

Let's step back. Since you make such a big deal about the 1949 "factual error,"
I am assuming that what you mean by the "rigorist position" is theone condemned by Suprema haec sacra, the position of the
"Cambridge-ites", that one must be a visible member of the Church tobe saved. That is what I have meant when I have said the "rigorist interpretation." If that is not what you mean, then please clarify.

Lionel:
Yes.
This was the understanding of the dogma before 1949. This was how St.Maximillian Kolbe understood it in the 1930's. ____________________
So, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore says "There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace."

Lionel:
Yes and the pope does not say that this is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.___________________

 

"He mentions the man in the forest in invincible ignorance."

He does, but he also explicitly speaks of the baptism of desire: "And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly." (Summa, III, q.68, a.2).

And even in his example of the man in the forest, he says "God Himself will show him what is necessary for salvation, either by inspiration or by sending a teacher to him." By including, "by inspiration" the Angelic doctor rejects the rigorist position as I have defined it above, as such a person would still not be baptized with water.

Lionel:
1. He says that God will send a preacher to him. Obviously the preacher will speak about the Faith and baptise him.
2. Assuming that this person went to Heaven without the baptism of water, as you suggest, how is this case an explicit, defacto exception to the dogma on April 1,2015? How would it be relevant to all needing faith and baptism for salvation to avoid Hell today.It's a hypothetical case for us.

Similarly how could this case be relevant to Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani in 1949 when he issued the Letter of the Holy Office ? He did not know of any such case.

Similarly how could it be relevant in 1960-65 at Vatican Council II when there are no such cases, known to us, in practical life ?_________________

The confusion comes from the fact that Aquinas speaks of "invincible ignorance" and calls it a punishment and that no one in invincible ignorance will be saved. But when we read ignorance will be saved. But when we read Aquinas' body of work, we see that he is not using the term as it is used by the Church elsewhere. By saying that the man in the forest will be provided inspiration or a teaching, Aquinas is clearly defining what the Church describes as vincible ignorance, ignorance that could have been overcome if the man had been willing. So all of Aquinas' teaching on invincible ignorance doesn't really apply to the Church's teaching.

Lionel:
Being saved in invincible ignorance would be a hypothetical case for us. So in itself it is irrelevant to the Feeneyite version of the dogma.______________________

 

But even if we were to accept that Aquinas contradicts the Church’s teaching as expressed today, that does not mean that the Church has abandoned her traditional teaching. Aquinas does not define dogma on his own, nor is he infallible. He was wrong about the Immaculate Conception after all and he does not trump either the papal or conciliar magisterium.

Lionel:
Aquinas held the rigorist interpretation of the dogma. The quotations are there are on the Internet.
Liberal theologians have assumed that being saved in invincible ignorance (whatever be the concept) is explicit and knowable in the present times. Then starts their descent to heresy with this irrationality.______________________

“None of them are interpreted by me, with the irrational proposition that persons saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the rigorist interpretation of the dogma. This would be implying that we can personally see or know these persons on March 31, 2015 for them to be exceptions.”
I do not understand what you are saying here.
Lionel:
We cannot have a theology based on an irrationality.We cannot create a theology while assuming people now in Heaven are physically visible to us on April 1,2015. If we use a strange premise we will end up with a non traditional result. It would not be Catholic theology. It would be something new.___________________________

  Invincible ignorance and baptism of desires are not “exceptions” to the dogma,
Lionel:
Are you affirming the 'rigorist interpretation' of the dogma here? The Feeneyite version with no exceptions?______________________

rather they are fulfillments of the dogma.
Lionel:
They don't exist in our reality.They have nothing to do with the de fide teaching on all non Catholics needing to formally enter the Church in the present times.I cannot meet someone in Rome today who I know will be saved without 'faith and baptism' in the present or future. ________________________

 

If your objection is that you think the Church is creating exceptions to the dogma, then you do not understand the Church’s contemporary teaching.

Lionel:
The Church contemporary teaching is based on a factual error. I am sorry I have to point this out. I wish some priest, bishop or cardinal would have done this.
Their theology is based on an objective error. Even a non Catholic could detect it.Since it violates common sense, common knowledge.____________________

 

The core of this aspect of the teaching is that there are those who are not formally members of the Church who can nonetheless be joined to the Church.

Lionel:
Assuming there were such cases ( even though it is de fide that all need to be formal members of the Church for salvation) we cannot meet an such case today morning or today afternoon. We cannot shake his hands. Personally we do not know who he or she is. So if you are inferring that this case is an exception to the strict interpretation of the dogma, you do not have a known case.You cannot cite his or her name and surname.______________________

 

The salvation of baptism of desire, even in invincible ignorance, is not a salvation outside the Church, it is a salvation *inside* the Church, even if that person is not visibly in the Church to use Aquinas’
terminology.
Lionel:
Whether it is inside or outside the Church, finally, we know that practically there is no such case.________________________

But we cannot know exactly who those people are.
Lionel:
Exactly. Only God can judge and know who they are.
"Zero cases of something cannot be exceptions to the dogma", says John Martignoni, the apologist who appears on EWTN. This is a zero case for us human beings.

_____________________

 

Only God can judge whether a person's ignorance is really invincible and whether their desire was effectively a desire for Baptism. We, therefore, can only pray and hope and seek to minimize the number of people in ignorance, invincible or otherwise. The Church offers a sure path to salvation, a gift, outside of which is a treacherous path, and so our evangelical call remains just as clear as ever.
Lionel:
Yes.Agreed._____________________

 

“I see it as an oversight of the magisterium after 1949. It can be corrected and we are back to the rigorist interpretation of the dogma.”
An oversight? It is the explicit teaching of an ecumenical council.

Lionel:
Vatican Council II refers to invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. It leaves it up to us to infer, if these cases, are exceptions to all needing faith and baptism(AG 7) for salvation.So I infer they are not.

I am in agreement with Vatican Council II.My view is that of the magisterium according to the texts of Vatican Council II and other documents. (CCC 1257 etc).__________________

 

The embrace of baptism of desire (which you *seem* to reject, I admit that your presentation leaves things a bit murky) is explicitly taught in Vatican II.
Lionel:
Vatican Council II does not state that these cases are explicit for us. These cases can only be implicit for us human beings and explicit only for God.So when it is assumed that these cases are explicit something new has been added, something foreign.If Vatican Council II suggest this then it has made an error. If a pope suggests this then he has made an objective error even if he is the pope._________________________

 

Baptism of Desire’s role as a part of the Church’s teaching that none can be saved outside the Church – because Baptism of Desire is not an exception to the teaching, it is a way to fulfill the teaching – cannot
be “corrected” unless the whole Council be declared invalid.
Lionel:
No correction has to be made in the text.I am affirming the present text when I hold the rigorist interpretation of the dogma according to Ad Gentes 7 ( 'all' need 'faith and baptism') and that there are no explicit exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II to AG 7.So I can affirm the Feeneyite version of the dogma along with implicit- for- us baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, seeds of the Word (AG 11), imperfect communion with the Church (UR 2), a ray of that Truth which enlighetens all men (NA 2), elements of sanctification and truth(LG 8) etc.

-Lionel Andrades

 

http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2015/03/dont-blame-vatican-ii.html#comment-1938577506