John Martignoni has said that 'Zero cases of something are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.' In other words we do not know of any explicit exception to all needing to enter the Church for salvation in 2016.This is something obvious. We cannot see any exceptions.
Even for Mother Angelica the founder of EWTN there were no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.She had posted a list on EWTN of the popes and saints affirming the dogma like the 16th century missionaries.It was not like Pope Benedict in his recent interview with Avvenire.
I have asked John Martignoni if there are any exceptions to EENS mentioned in Vatican Council II for him, since for me there are none. He will not answer.He said there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS but would not comment on Vatican Council II.
Neither will Bishop Baker or the directors and officials of his diocese offices put forward an answer.
They will not disagree or agree with John Martignoni and Bishop Thomas E. Gullickson who say there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS.Obviously there are no known exceptions!
For Raymond Arroyo and the speakers on EWTN situated in Alabama, the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Even for EWTN 's National Catholic Register correspondents there are known exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. For Mark Shea and Edward Pentin there are known exceptions.
MOTHER ANGELICA'S EENS
Why cannot we all go back to Mother Angelica's understanding of extra ecclesiam nulla salus,as interpreted by the 16th century missionaries ? John Martignoni, says there are no known exceptions to the dogma and Bishop Robert Baker does not know of any one today who does not need to be 'card carrying member of the Church', to avoid the fires of Hell. So why cannot we affirm EENS as did Mother Angelica?
The diocese of Birmingham in Alabama and EWTN could officially affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no known exceptions in 2016.No one in the diocese knows of any exception.
EXCEPTIONS FOR THE POPE
Pope Benedict has said that 'the dogma has evolved' but we do not know of any exceptions, there is no known salvation outside the Church. Pope Benedict could confirm for EWTN or the diocese of Alabama, that he does not know of any one saved outside the Church, without 'faith and baptism'(AG 7, LG 14).He personally does not know of any one who would be an exception to the 16th century Catholic interpretation of the dogma.
The liberal bishop who took over EWTN from Mother Angelica possibly told her that LG 16 for example was an exception to her understanding of EENS. In other words LG 16 referrred not to an invisible but a visible case. It would have to be somebody personally known, physically known to be an exception.Is there such a person for the present bishop in the diocese of EWTN ?
We now know that the liberal bishop who initially took over EWTN, which was being criticized by the National Catholic Reporter, assumed that there were known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.He made an objective mistake we now know.So could Bishop Robert J. Baker confirm this?
He could simply confirm that there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, there are no known cases in 2016 of persons saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. He could confirm that in 2016 we do not know of any person saved with the baptism of desire and blood or in invincible ignorance, without the baptism of water .
He could ask Raymond Arroyo to state his position on this issue.
1.I personally do not know of any such case of someone being saved without the baptism of water
2.No one in the past could have known of any such case. Physically they could not see people in Heaven saved without the baptism of desire etc.Neither could they say that any particular person on earth was saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
3.Those who refer to 'the desirethereof ' (Council of Trent) do not state that these cases were explicit and personally known. It was theologians who interpreted these cases as being explicit.So when a baptism of desire list is presented, for me,there is not a single reference which says that these cases are objective or relevant to EENS.The entire list is irrelevant to EENS. They are not exceptions.
4. No one who issued the Baltimore Catechism knew of a case of some one saved with 'only the desire' and without the baptism of water. So how could they speculate that 'the desire thereof' was a known baptism like the baptism of water? This was irrational. The baptism of water is physical. The baptism of desire is not.
So if any of the speakers on EWTN says there is salvation outside the Church it is speculation. This speculation cannot be posited as being an explicit exception to the dogma on salvation.
AGREE WITH ME
Bishop Baker, Raymond Arroyo and the EWTN speakers and apologists could say for example the following.
1. There are no known cases of someone saved outside the Church past or present and so there are no known exceptions to the dogma as it was known in the 16 th century. This is a rational option.
2.They could say that LG 16,LG 8, NA 2, UR 3 etc refer to invisible and not visible cases. So there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict EENS as it was known in the past.
3.The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made an objective mistake when it assumed that hypothetical cases were objectively known.There are no known cases of the baptism of desire or blood or being saved in invincible ignorance without the baptism of water in 2016.
INVISIBLE OR VISIBLE
As I mentioned in a comment on a post on The Catholic World Report, for me Lumen Gentium 16 refers to an invisible case and so it does not contradict EENS. When there are no exceptions to EENS, the theology is once again traditional and rational.Is it the same for Bishop Robert J. Baker ?
To change the dogma EENS is heresy. To reject it is heresy.To interpret Vatican Council II with an irrationality to produce a non traditional result, is heresy. It is not affirming Vatican Council II in line with the dogma EENS.It is changing the dogma EENS, the Nicene Creed and Vatican Council II with an irrational premise ( physically seeing people saved in Heaven without the baptism of water) and a non traditional inference ( these explicit cases in Heaven or earth are known exceptions to EENS).This is being done on EWTN and in the religious and catechetical departments of the EWTN diocese.Could we have a clarification ?.
The local liberal bishop took over EWTN and projected being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) as an exception to Mother Angelica's understanding of the dogma on salvation