Thursday, August 27, 2015

At odds in the parishes

Usually I am at odds with the clergy of a parish, since i interpret Vatican Council II in agreement with the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) while they accept Vatican Council II as a break with EENS and the rest of Tradition. 
For me LG 16, LG 8, NA 2, UR 3 etc refer to invisible cases .For them LG 16 etc refer to explicit cases, seen in the flesh in 2015. So they are exceptions to EENS.If they are exceptions they are visible. If there are exceptions you have to know who the exceptions are.So their position is irrational.
For me LG 16 etc would be followed with the baptism of water, for them not necessarily.A person can be saved without the baptism of water !
This would be a contradiction of the Nicene Creed ( I believe in one baptism) and the dogma EENS.
Since for them there is salvation outside the Church, for me there is no  salvation outside the Church past or present, since no one could go to Heaven and confirm it.While the dogma defined by three Church Councils says outside the Church there is no salvation.
No one has seen someone saved without 'faith and baptism' (AG 7) over the last 100 or more years.
It was irrational for the Baltimore Catechism(1808) to suggest that there were three baptisms, water, desire and blood.They did not know any one past or present who was saved with the baptism of desire or blood and without the baptism of water.
So it was irrational for the Holy Office 1949 to suggest that the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) were exceptions to the rigorist interpretation of EENS.How could they know of any explicit case of BOD, BOB or I.I?
So this was an innovation in the Church,a human error.It was not the work of the Holy Spirit,who cannot teach error.The Holy Spirit cannot teach that something which is invisible on earth is visible for us.Nor could the Holy Spirit negate the centuries old interpretation of EENS.It would mean there was a mistake either before or after 1808.A human mistake.
-Lionel Andrades

No comments: