It's common knowledge that we cannot see or know people in Heaven as we see and know people on earth.People on earth are objective and real for us, while people in Heaven are part of our thoughts and imagination.
On earth things are concrete.We can see the butterflies and trees in the garden for example.But not everything is concrete. Yet they exist for us, like the thoughts in our mind, our feelings and beliefs. With our eyes we cannot see our thoughts and feelings as we can see the trees and birds and human beings.So there are things which are explicit and there are concepts which are implicit.There are some things which are visible and there are aspects of life and nature which are invisible. We can make the distinction between what is objective and what is subjective. There is the known and the unknown, the concrete and the abstract. We don't mix up the two.They are generally clear to most people. Even a young boy would know the difference between what is visible and invisible. One does not have to be educated, intelligent or even a theologian to see the difference.There are some objects seen while concepts are not. We can see humans on earth but not angels in Heaven or on earth.This is something so obvious yet we will see that it has been overlooked by so many people.
So if any one says that we humans in general can see people in heaven, we would not accept it. Since reason and experience for most people would say this is not true.
Even if someone like the President of a country, or the pope, would say that people in Heaven are visible on earth physically, we would not believe it. We know it would be irrational and false even if it was said by an important person.
We humans naturally make the distinction between what is visible and invisible,concrete and abstract , objective and subjective.
Similarly we reason out that there are some things which are different from other things. Some things are exceptions.
If there is an apple in a box of oranges then the apple is an exception since it is different and it exists. If the apple was not there physically in the box it would not be an exception. So it had to to exist in the box to be an exception. This is a simple observation that many people over look, including theologians.
Similarly if there was a group of tall boys at a street corner and another boy joins them who is short, then for an onlooker, that short boy would be different. He would also be an exception because he is there at that corner.He exists.
Let us take a third example. If there is a hospital medical ward with 10 patients and one of them is cured, then he is an exception.Not only because he is different but because he exists in that ward at that time.
So I will conclude this section of the video by saying we can make a distinction between what is visible and invisible ,concrete and abstract, objective and subjective.And, for something to be an exception it must be different.It must also in some way exist in our reality .It's important that it exists, that it is there, for it to be an exception among the others.
Part 2 So keeping these two philosiphical points, two natural ways of reasoning, I come to main subject of this video :The Magisterial heresy.I would like to say at the onset that as a Catholic, I believe in the Teaching Authority of the Church, called the Magisterium. I believe the Magisterium in general is guided by God. I believe the Holy Spirit guides the Magisterium of the Church and the pope is infallible, when he speaks ex cathedra, along with the cardinals and bishops and in accord with Sacred Scripture and Tradition.
So under these conditions the Magisterium of the pope, is infallible when speaking on faith and morals .But the pope is fallible on other human issues. For example he may not know how to repair his computer, or forget to buy something he needs, or mixes up the names of people he meets. He could make a a wrong decision on a wordly issue due to misinformation.Or he could simply forget to check something.The human factor!Like all of us the pope could overlook something important.And it could be innocent, an accident.
So - did the pope overlook by accident something important? Did the pope make a factual error ? Was the distinction between what is visible and invisible blurred?
Did the Magisterium assume something was an exception , when it was not? Did they overlook something important about the Catholic Faith?
Yes they did. It was a simple error.It happened.
The Magisterium made a human error on a faith-issue.
The Magisterium contradicted itself and also contradicted the past Magisterium.
The present Magisterium over some 70 years , has changed a dogma of the Church with a simple error. And this cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit.
The objective error was first made with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It was then extended to Vatican Council II and then to the encylicals of Pope John Paul II. It is there in ecumenical agreements like the Balamand Declaration and the Joint Declaration on Justification.The error is there in two theological papers of the Vatican's International Theological Commission.
What is this error? What precisely is it ? How could the popes and cardinals overlook something so obvious ?
For centuries the Catholic Church taught the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It said there is exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.All need to be formal members of the Church with faith and baptism. Every one needed to be a card carrying member of the Church, every one needed to have his or her name on the Parish Baptismal Register to avoid Hell and to go to Heaven.Outside the Church there was no known salvation.
This teaching is traced to Jesus' words in John 3:5, Mark 16:16. This was the Magisterial teaching for centuries.There was a consensus on it. No confusion or ambiguity.
Then it changed. Secular media and Catholic sources today would say the Church does not teach this any more. So how could the Magisterium of the past not be magisterial any more ? Where or what was the precise point, when the change was made and it was acceptable to the popes and cardinals, the defenders of the Catholic Faith ?
The change came with a mistake.
It was something that was overlooked.
The error was there in the Baltimore Catechism (1808).It was repeated in the Catechism of Pius X and it was out in the open, enforced, in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case. This was when the Holy Office issued the Letter to the Archbishop of Boston in 1949.The error was then placed in Vatican Council II.
But what was the precise error? It was made by Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani. He issued the Letter of 1949 during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII. Some claim that it was not written by him .It was tampered with. It was only made public a few years after it was issued to the Archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Richard Cushing.
Th is controversial Letter criticizes Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center for what the media calls the 'rigorist interpretation' of the dogma.The Letter suggests that a person can be saved with the baptism of desire or blood or in invincible ignorance.And this is possible without the baptism of water.So for the Holy Office(CDF) there were exceptions to the traditional interpretation of Fr. Leonard Feeney.If there were exceptions then it means these cases were explicit. This was the precise error. Explicit baptisms of desire and blood? How can they be explicit for us human beings. Also the theologians at that time, cited the Baltimore Catechism with three baptisms, water, blood and desire.Three known baptisms ? Three explicit baptisms ? Yes the baptism of water is explicit, it can be seen and repeated. But the baptism of desire and blood are always implicit for us and known only to God. So it was first wrongly assumed that these cases were explicit and secondly, the connection or link was made with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Here was the precise error.
Pope Pius XII through his silence supported Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani. He also approved the excommunication of Fr. Feeney, by Cardinal Richard Cushing.The Jesuits expelled Fr. Leonard Feeney and the pope said nothing.
Now after some 70 plus years we are asking ourself , how can the baptism of desire and blood be a baptism like the baptism of water ? Where is the proof ? Where is the concrete example?
How can these cases, with or without the baptism of water, who are now in Heaven, be an exception on earth to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
How can the baptism of desire and blood, cases which are known only to God and who do not exist in our reality,be an exception to all needing to formally enter the Church for salvation in 2015?
How can people in Heaven, who are unknown and invisible for us be an exception to the rigorist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus?
How can non existent cases be relevant to Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center's understanding of the dogma?
Was the Letter of the Holy Office not irrational? Was this not Magisterial irrationality?
If a pope or cardinal infers that people in Heaven are visible on earth it has to be a mistake.
If a pope or cardinal assumes non existent cases are an exception to the dogma it is a mistake.
Zero cases of something cannot be exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus says the apologist John Martignoni.
Archbishop Thomas E. Gullickson agrees that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The Magisterium made a mistake. ________________________ Part IV
Fr.P. Stefano Visintin OSB, Dean of the Faculty of Theology at the Pontifical University St.Anselm, Rome also says there are no known exceptions.
The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are possibilities, he said, but are not known exceptions to the traditional teaching on salvation. So the Magisterium made a mistake in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case and we can see the error placed in Vatican Council II. Why had the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance have to be mentioned in Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 ? Whey were they mentioned along with orthodox passages which say all need faith and baptism for salvation?
What has being saved in invincible ignorance of the Gospel or with implicit desire for the baptism of water, have to do with all needing to convert into the Church with faith and baptism one may ask.Theoretical cases cannot be relevant to all needing to practically enter the Church for salvation. Theoretical cases cannot be objective exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church. Can cases which are invisible for us be visible exceptions to all needing faith and baptism? Did the Council Fathers make a mistake and assume these cases were visible instead of invisible? So they became relevant to the orthodox passages in AG 7, LG 14 which support the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.? Why was this mentioned? Why was being saved with implicit desire for the baptism of water of an unknown catechuman have to be mentioned in Vatican Council II ? Why did Cardinal Richard Cushing allow the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance to be mentioned in Vatican Council II I keep asking.He along with the U.S Jesuits were active at Vatican Council II. He still had not lifted the restrictions on Fr. Leonard Feeney at the time. Th world believed that Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for not accepting exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma. The cardinal never issued a clarification. Cardinal Cushing made an objective mistake, a factual error in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case and he carried over that error into Vatican Council II. It is a fact of life that we cannot know or see people saved in Heaven with the baptism of desire or blood or in invincible ignorance.How can the baptisms desire and blood be 'baptisms' when we cannot administer them, when we do not personally know any one saved as such. So how could the Baltimore Catechism refer to three known baptisms? The Nicene Creed states there is one baptism for the forgiveness of sin and the dogma on salvation also mentions only one baptism, the baptism of water.Only one. The Athanasius Creed like the Nicene Creed does not mention any exceptions.The Athanasius Creed also says all need to be formal members of the Church for salvation.All. No exceptions. So where are these explicit exceptions? There are none.Look around you.Do you know someone saved with invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire? Do you know who they are or where do they live? No. The popes made a mistake. They assumed invisible, implicit and abstract cases were visible, explicit and concrete for us. Then upon this objective error they crested a theology. An injustice was done to Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center in Boston.The baptism of desire had nothing to do with the dogma. An injustice was done also to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Since Vatican Council II was a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salusonly if LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc were assumed to be explicit, visible and seen in the flesh. If they are seen as they are, invisible, hypothetical and known only to God, they are not exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The Magisterium did not tell him this. The Magisterium did not know this. They did not inform Archbishop Lefebvre that Vatican Council II could be interpreted in agreement with the rigorist interpretation of the dogma and in accord with the Syllabus of Errors. For Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican Council II was a break with extra ecclesiam nulla salus.LG 16 was explicit. For Archbishop Lefebvre Vatican Council II ( with the inference, the dead- saved and now in Heaven, without the baptism of water are exceptions to the dogma) was heresy and a break with Tradition. He was correct. He was excommunicated. It was a bad excommunication since the Archbishop was saying something which was obvious to Catholics.Vatican Council II ( with the inference) was non traditional and an innovation.It was heretical. The Magisterium did not know at that time that Vatican Council II could also be interpreted in agreement with the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The non heretical version. The Magisterium at the time of the excommunication did not know that the Holy Office 1949 had made an objective mistake. The Archbishop too did not know it. The Magisterium was in heresy. The contemporary Magisterium was promoting a Vatican Council II which contradicted itself.LG 16 contradicted AG 7 adn LG 14.Explicit for us LG 16 contradicted all needing faith and baptism for salvation.(AG 7, LG 14) The contemporary Magisterium was also opposing the pre- 1808 Magisterium with its exceptions theory. At one time the Magisterium had to be wrong-before or after the Baltimore Catechism. Before or after the 1949 Boston Case, at one time the Magisterium had to be wrong. Due to overlooking the explicit-implicit distinction , a magisterial heresy was created. The good news though is that the error though is not fixed.It is not permanent. There is hope for the future. The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of blood are always implicit and invisible for us.So they are acceptable as being hypothetical and followed by the baptism of water.They can only be hypothetical for us.There is no other choice. They cannot be visible cases. So they do not contradict the orthodox passages in Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) which support the strict interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church. Vatican Council II ( without the inference) we see, is Feeneyite.It is in agreement with Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441 , one of the three Church Councils which defined the dogma. Vatican Council II is in agreement with the Council of Trent which mentions the phrase ' or the desire thereof,' but does not state that this implicit desire is explicit or an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Vatican Council II is in agreement with the Athanasius Creed and the Nicene Creed when the implicit-explicit distinction is made. Vatican Council II and the Feeneyite version of the dogma is in agreement with the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1257) which says 'the Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water'.We do not know any one who is saved without the baptism of water, because 'God is not bound to the Sacraments' (CCC 1257). We do not know any one who is an exception to the dogma on salvation because ' all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church ' (CCC 846).So CCC 846 and 1257 do not contradict Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center. The Holy Spirit still guides the Magisterium of the Church and Vatican Council II is in agreement with Tradition.There is a hermenutic of continuity and no hermeneutic of rupture. Vatican Council II like the past popes and saints still says all Hindus, Buddhists, Jews and Muslims need to formally enter the Church with 'faith and baptism'(AG 7, LG 14) for salvation.All Christians need Catholic Faith ( AG 7, LG 14) to go to Heaven and avoid Hell. Faith includes the Sacraments and the faith and moral teachings of the Church, which have not changed. In conclusion it means the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) can accept a Vatican Council II in which LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc are implicit and not explicit. So they will be accepting Vatican Council II always with the old exclusivist ecclesiology and the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It will be in agreement with the Syllabus of Errors.They will be accepting the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney along with implicit and theoretical for us baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance . It will be followed by the baptism of water in a manner known only to God, as St.Thomas Aquinas and St. Francis Xavier explained it.They can have it both ways. It does not have to be extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney or the baptism of desire.The baptism of desire is hypothetical. So it is compatible with the rigorist interpretation of the dogma and this does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction. Since accepting Vatican Council II is a requirement for canonical status they can accept Vatican Council II without the irrational inference.And they can reject the Magisterium's interpretation of Vatican Council II with the irrational inference. They must reject this magisterial heresy. Similarly the Franciscans of the Immaculate, who want to offer only the Traditional Latin Mass, with the old ecclesiology can accept Vatican Council II without the irrational inference of being able to to see people in Heaven who are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They can affirm the old exclusivist ecclesiology of the Traditional Latin Mass which is not contradicted by Vatican Council II.LG 16 is implicit and not explicit.Ecclesiology would not depend on the liturgy. So even the Friars who offer the Novus Ordo Mass can interpret Vatican Council II rationally. All the Franciscans of the Immaculate, would have to follow the old ecclesiology. Rationally there is no other choice. Also the sedevacantists CMRI, MHFM and others, can interpret Vatican Council II in agreement with the old ecclesiology and so the doctrinal basis for their sedevacantism has been removed.They can ask Pope Francis to also affirm Vatican Council II interpreted rationally. The Magisterial mistake has been corrected.The heresy avoided. This is the happy ending to this story.
JUNE 4, 2016
My Approach : apologetics
I affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).I then affirm it in agreement with Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14). I say that EENS and Vatican Council II say all need to formally enter the Church for salvation ( with faith and baptism ).There are no exceptions. This is the general rule, this is the de fideteaching.
Then I say that I personally I do not know of any one saved with the baptism of desire or blood, with or without the baptism of water. So there are no known exceptions to the dogma for me in 2016.
The baptism of desire is a hypothetical case. For it to be an exception or relevant to EENS it would have to be explicit. Zero cases of something are not exceptions to EENS says the apologist John Martignoni.
So the bottom line is that there is no known salvation outside the Church for me. I cannot meet someone saved without the baptism of water.This is physically impossible and so no one in the past could also have known of a case of someone saved outside the Church.
So this is my basic position. Then I wait for the questions to come.
So your reject the baptism of desire, it is asked?
I accept implicit for us baptism of desire, a possibility, a hypothetical case.It is theoretical for me.
I reject explicit for us baptism of desire.Since no one could have known of an explicit case of the baptism of desire.If any one says that a hypothetical case is objectively visible it would be an objective error.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 refers to the baptism of desire with respect to EENS?
Yes. The second part of the Letter made an objective mistake. It assumed a hypothetical case was an objective exception to the traditional interpretation of EENS, the Feeneyite interpretation.
Vatican Council II mentions the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance.
Yes.It was a mistake which is a carry over from the Letter (1949).There should not have been a reference to the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance in Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14. Any way since the baptism of desire etc refer to hypothetical cases LG 14 and AG 7 do not contradict the centuries old interpretation of the dogma, the 'rigorist interpretation'. So no hypothetical reference in Vatican Council II can be an exception to EENS.
What about St. Emerentiana and St.Victor, who went to Heaven without the baptism of water?
How could any one know of any saint being in Heaven without the baptism of water? This is speculation.
Feeneyites/and that those who hold to no BoB/BoD can go to heaven because it is an infallibly taught doctrine.
The St.Benedict Center N.H,USA affirms the baptism of desire but they say it must be followed by the baptism of water.
I agree with them.This is a theoretical case.Acccording to the dogma this theoretical case must include the baptism of water .
I (Lionel) do not reject the baptism of desire and blood.Since I know they refer to invisible cases for us. So they are not exceptions to the dogma.
For the FSSP/SSPX priests the baptism of desire is an exception to EENS. So they infer that they know of someone saved or about to be saved with the baptism of desire .This is irrational. The FSSP/SSPX position like that of the Letter (1949) is irrational.
They cite Trent,
The Council of Trent does not state that 'thedesiretherof' is known, explicit, objectively seen. So the desiretherof is not an exception to EENS.It is the liberal theologians who have interpreted the Council of Trent as referring to an explicit case.
and the early writings of St. Augustine,
St.Augustine affirmed the traditional interpretation of the dogma, the Feeneyite interpretation. So did St.Thomas Aquinas. This was the interpretation of the 16th centuries missionaries too.
They site, Ambrose, the story of the Prince who went into battle unbaptized, etc.
St. Ambrose could not have known if the Prince was in Heaven. He speculated with good will.How could he humanly know if the Prince went to Heaven unbaptized? Did he go to Heaven and return?!
Others as St. Alphonsus, etc......
St.Alphonus Ligouri held the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS.He did not state that the baptism of desire was explicit and so an exception to EENs. This is an FFSP/SSPX interpretation.
As long as I make the distinction between explicit and implicit, visible and invisible baptism of desire , I am on safe ground. Since they cannot accuse me of being in heresy. I keep affirming the dogma EENS according to the Councils ( Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441 etc) and I keep affirming implicit for us baptism of desire.So i am not rejecting either of the two.This is clear for me.
If the FSSP/SSPX priest says that you cannot say that you accept the baptism of desire and also the traditional interpretation of EENS and this is contrary to the Principle of Non Conctradiction...
I tell him that only explicit for us baptism of desire would contradict the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS.Hypothetical baptism of desire would not contradict the strict interpretation of EENS.So I can have it both ways: invisible for us baptism of desire and the strict interpretation of EENS.
For him there is a contradiction since the baptism of desire is explicit.
So how could I be a heretic ? I am not denying the baptism of desire (implicit).I am not denying EENS( Feeneyite/traditional). I am not denying Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite).
On the other hand it is the FSSP/SSPX priest who denies invisible for us baptism of desire.
He rejects EENS since explicit for us baptism of desire contradicts EENS.He has to accept EENS with this irrationality.
He rejects Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) and assumes hypothetical cases are objective. Then Vatican Council II for him becomes a break with EENS and the Syllabus of Errors.The only thing going for him is that the contemporary magisterium makes the same error and it is a break with the pre-Council of Trent times.
Theologically I make the distinction between Cushingism and Feeneyism.
Cushingism says there are known exceptions to EENS. The baptism of desire is a known exception to EENS for Cushingites.The popes and the FSSP /SSPX priests are Cushingites.
Feeneyism says there are NO known exceptions to EENS. The baptism of desire is unknown .It is not an an exception to EENS.
I can interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism or Feeneyism.
I can interpret EENS with Cushingism or Feeneyism.
Similarly the baptism of desire can be visible or invisible , Cushingite or Feeneyite. Feeneyism is rational. Cushingism is irrational and an innovation in the Church.
JUNE 4, 2016
SSPX in its theological and philosophical formation is using the false premise and conclusion which is the basis of the new theology.
Granted, the Vatican recognizing the SSPX as genuinely Catholic is simply a matter of justice, for the SSPX is faithful to all that the Church has taught and practiced throughout the centuries including the inconvenient truths of Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors, Pius XI’s Quas Primas and other counter-revolutionary Papal texts.-John Vennari
In the previous blog post I mentioned how the SSPX is not faithful to the Syllabus of Errors.Theologically, for SSPX bishops and many priests , there are exceptions to the Syllabus teachings on other religions and Christian communities.1
Philosophy needs to submit to rationality and Tradition.Yet the SSPX reasons out that there are known cases of the baptism of desire .This is an irrational premise. Also no magisterial document before the Council of Trent says there are explicit cases of the baptism of desire.Then the SSPX concludes that since there are known cases of the baptism of desire; they are seen in the flesh for them, these cases are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, according to the 16th century missionaries.
II. MODERATE RATIONALISM
10. As the philosopher is one thing, and philosophy another, so it is the right and duty of the philosopher to subject himself to the authority which he shall have proved to be true; but philosophy neither can nor ought to submit to any such authority.—Ibid., Dec. 11, 1862.-Syllabus of Errors
The SSPX has accepted the wrong philosophical reasoning in the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston. TheLetter speculated that hypothetical cases can be explicit ( false premise) and so there were exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (conclusion).
11. The Church not only ought never to pass judgment on philosophy, but ought to tolerate the errors of philosophy, leaving it to correct itself.—Ibid., Dec. 21, 1863.
This philosophical error of assuming hypothetical cases are objective was made by the liberals at Boston and Rome in 1949 and then the error was inserted in Vatican Council II.The SSPX is not aware of it .So we cannot expect them to correct it.
13. The method and principles by which the old scholastic doctors cultivated theology are no longer suitable to the demands of our times and to the progress of the sciences.—Ibid.
SSPX in its theological and philosopsical formation is using the false premise and conclusion which is the basis of the new theology. So it has rejected the philophical reasoning and traditional theology of the pre Council of Trent times.
The SSPX is not faithful to the Syllabus of Errors.Theologically, for SSPX bishops and many priests , there are exceptions to the Syllabus teachings on other religions and Christian communities.http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/the-sspx-is-not-faithful-to-syllabus-of.html
FEBRUARY 4, 2016
Bishop Schneider like Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and SSPX bishops and priests confuses what is invisible as being visible.Card. Gerhard Muller and Pope Francis do the same.So Vatican Council II becomes a break with the past
Expressions like "development of doctrine" and "pastoral compassion" are in fact usually a pretext to change the teaching of Christ, and against its perennial sense and integrity, as the Apostles had transmitted it to the whole Church, and it was faithfully preserved through the Fathers of the Church, the dogmatic teachings of the Ecumenical Councils and of the Popes. -Bishop Athanasius Schneider
Here is 'the development of doctrine' from the Baltimore Catechism to Vatican Council II. It was effected with an irrational premise and inference.
BALTIMORE CATECHISM Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water? A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.
Lionel: So where are these cases ? What are their names?
They assume these persons are known. Invisible cases are assumed to be visible.
Q.654.How do we know that the baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water? A. We know that baptism of desire or blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water, from Holy Scripture which teaches that love of God and perfect contrition can secure the remission of sins; and also that Our Lord promises salvation to those who lay down their life for HIs sake or for his teaching.
Lionel: Then it is assumed that these invisible cases are visible exceptions to all needing to receive the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. First there was a wrong premise ( known cases of persons saved without the baptism of water) and then there is a wrong inference ( these unknown cases, are known and so they are exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation,they are exceptions to all needing to be formal members of the Catholic Church. They are exceptions to the old ecclesiology.
Then the error was placed in Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
Lionel :WHO KNOWING?': WHY MENTION THIS ? WE DON'T KNOW WHO KNOWS OR DOES NOT KNOW. ONLY GOD CAN KNOW THIS.
Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel : WHAT HAS THIS THEOLOGY TO DO WITH EENS? THERE ARE NO SUCH KNOWN CASES.
In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Letter of the Holy Office 1949 : from meaningless non applicable theology to heresy
THE DOGMA : EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
MEANINGLESS, NON APPLICABLE THEOLOGY
Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.- Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel :THEOLOGY OF NON EXISTENT, UNKNOWN CASES: WHY IS THIS THEOLOGY MENTIONED WITH REFERENCE TO EENS ? WHY IS IT PLACED HERE ?
In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing.- Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel : THE RESULT : HERESY. MAGISTERIAL HERESY.
Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.- Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel :WHY NOT 'ALWAYS REQUIRED'? WHERE ARE THE KNOWN EXCEPTIONS?
Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel : O.K BUT WHAT HAS THIS TO DO WITH THE DOGMA. THEORETICAL, HYPOTHETICAL CASES? WHY MENTION THIS THEOLOGY?
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.-
Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel :SUPERFLOUS THEOLOGY. WE DON'T KNOW ANY SUCH CASE IN REAL LIFE. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DOGMA.
These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel :AND WE DON'T KNOW WHO THEY ARE IN PERSONAL CASES.
Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition "in which they cannot be sure of their salvation" since "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church" (AAS, 1. c., p. 243).-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel :WHETHER THEY ARE EXCLUDED OR NOT WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE THEY ARE NOT OBJECTIVE CASES.
With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire...-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Then there being known cases is mentioned in Vatican Council II
7. This missionary activity derives its reason from the will of God, "who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, Himself a man, Jesus Christ, who gave Himself as a ransom for all" (1 Tim. 2:45), "neither is there salvation in any other" (Acts 4:12). Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."(17) Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6), yet a necessity lies upon the Church (1 Cor. 9:16), and at the same time a sacred duty, to preach the Gospel. And hence missionary activity today as always retains its power and necessity.-Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II
Lionel :So in 'the development of doctrine' (on salvation, exclusivist ecclesiology, the subject of other religions and ecumenism) Vatican Council II is a break with the past. It is break with Tradition. It mentions known exceptions to the dogma extra eclesiam nulla salus.
It is a development of doctrine for Bishop Athansius Schneider, the traditionalists, liberals and the magisterium but - not for me!
Since I am aware of the original mistake I avoid it.
I say, when asked, that the baptism of desire and blood refer to hypothetical cases. They are invisible for us human beings.Being invisible and unknown they cannot be exceptions to the dogmaextra ecclesiam nulla salus and the old ecclesiology.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made a factual mistake.
Now when I read Vatican Council II I know that being saved in invincible ignorance refers to a hypothetical case in 2016. It does not contradict the orthodox passage in Ad Gentes 7 (see above) which says 'all' need 'faith and baptism' for salvation. Neither does it contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as intepreted by St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Ignatius of Loyola and Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center.Since 'zero cases', as John Martignoni the apologist says, cannot be exceptions.
So there is no change in ecclesiology in Vatican Council II for me, as long as I do not mix up what is invisible for being visible.
Bishop Schneider like Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and dthe SSPX bishops and priests, confuses what is invisible as being visible.Cardinal Gerhard Muller and Pope Francis also do the same.So Vatican Council II becomes a break with the past.
Bishop Schneider expediently does not comment on the error in the Baltimore Catechism and its link to Vatican Council IIhttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/02/bishop-schneider-expediently-does-not.html