Archbishop Pio Vito Pinto has said that the four cardinals may lose their cardinalate who asked Pope Francis to clarify heretical points in Amoris Laetitia.
I am thinking of the fear there must be in priests to say in public that there is an objective mistake in Vatican Council II and that they support the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
A priest with whom I have been in communication with over the week said that there are obviously no known cases of the baptism of desire. We cannot see or meet someone in the present times or the past saved, as such.
So the baptism of desire is not an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus for you, I asked him? He would not answer.It was a simple question.
If he says that the baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus then it would also suggest that LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 are also hypothetical cases and so are not exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation, as it was interpretated by the 16th century missionaries.
This means Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma which says all Jews , Protestants and Orthodox Christians and others need to be incorporated as members into the Church for salvation.
It also means that when Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation there are no passages in the Council to contradict it.LG 14 does not contradict it. Since it too refers to a hypothetical case.
So if this priest said in public that the baptism of desire- case is obviously an imaginary case in the present or the past, Vatican Council II would support the SSPX and sedevacantist position on ecumenism, inter-religious dialogue and the Social Reign of Christ the King.Since all these teachings of the Church are based on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
If this priest allowed me to quote him saying the obvious, that is, the baptism of desire is an imaginary case, theoretical, hypothetical, a possibility accepted with good will but not defacto and known, then this priest would be doing away with the New Theology.
The New Theology is based on there being known cases of the baptism of desire and then it is inferred that these 'known' cases are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the old ecclesiology of the Church. So with the New Theology it is postulated that there is known salvation outside the Church.This is a magisterial and politicaly-correct theology which is embraced also by the non -suspecting traditionalists.
Since there is alleged known salvation outside the Church there can be the new ecumenism which rejects an ecumenism of return, there can be the Anonymous Christian theory which admits the possibility of a non Catholic saved in his religion' through Jesus and the Church'.There is also no need for the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation, since a non Catholic can be saved outside the Church.
These are all the implications which arise if that priest simply spoke the truth and said what is obvious.The baptism of desire refers to theoretical possibilities and is not a defacto,personally known case in 2016.This is all he had to say.
Now picture a cardinal saying the same thing.
What would happen if a cardinal said he affirmed the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? Since he did not and could not personally know of any case of the baptism of desire this year or through out his life.
What if he said that since hypothetical cases cannot be defacto exceptions to all needing to be incorporated into the Church as members to avoid Hell, the hypothetical references in Vatican Council II should not be projected as explicit exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma ?
What is he said that extra ecclesiam nulla salus is the foundational basis of other teachings of the Church including ecumenism, outside the Church Jews and Muslims are on the way to Hell and the need for the Social Reign of Christ the King ? All of which have not changed after Vatican Council II?
Would he lose his cardinalate?
I have been saying the same thing and they suspect that I am a traditionalist or sedevacantist.But I correct them. I say that I affirm Vatican Council II.I do not deny the Council. I do not have to.
Vatican Council II without the new theology( the irrational premise on the baptism of desire etc) for me is in accord with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the 16th century missionaries.
It is has been for some years now that I have been writing about this and yet the cardinals and bishops at the CDF/Ecclesia Dei do not want to comment. Some priests and bishops to whom I have spoken to here in Rome call this a sensitive issue.Edwin Pentin is dead-scared to broach the subject again with the CDF/Ecclesia Dei. It seems he got a warning of some sort.
So they all pretend that the baptism of desire refers to objective cases in 2016. Vatican Council II is a rupture with Tradition.The present Magisterium is not wrong.This is how they fake it.