Faculty at Sacred Heart Major Seminary agree there are no known cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance in 2017

Dr.Robert Fastiggi says Pope Pius XII wrote an encyclical (47:10) which does not say  that those outside the Church belong to the Mystical Body but he does say that there are some who by an unconscious desire and longing have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer this was cited in a Letter of the Holy Office 1949 are saved.

Lionel: Exactly. Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis does not state that those outside the Church belong to the Mystical Body.

He also did not say that we know of any person in particular saved with an unconscious desire, within or outside the church.

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made a mistake.

The same mistake was repeated in Vatican Council II(LG 16 etc).Being saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire do not refer to any one saved outside the Church.

______________________________________

Dr.Robert Fastiggi then says that there was a big breakthrough as God also excepts an implicit desire so it was accepted that there could be explicit baptism of desire and implicit baptism of desire.(51:40)

Lionel: How can there be explicit baptism of desire? How can we know of someone who has an implicit baptism of desire and who will be saved ? 

When there are no known case of explicit or implicit baptism of desire how could the baptism of desire be relevant to the dogma EENS ?

_________________________________________

After saying that  Fr. Leonard Feeney was wrong for not accepting the baptism of desire as the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 stated, Dr.Fastiggi says that Fr. Leonard Feeney was not excommunicated for heresy(1:13:20)!!

He criticizes Archbishop Lefebvre for being disobedient too like Fr. Leonard Feeney.He wanted both of them to accept that hypothetical and invisible cases, in our reality, were visible and known examples, of salvation outside the Church.Since they did not affirm this nonsense they were excommunicated.

Dr.Robert Fastiggi's  talk was based on the false premise.He assumes the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to known people saved outside the Church.There can be no such known- case.Then he assumes that Lumen Gentium 16(invincible ignorance) etc also refer to known people saved outside the Church.So for him Vatican Council II becomes a rupture with the dogma EENS as it was defined by the Council of Florence 1441 which he quoted and rejected.

For me,unlike him, hypothetical cases are not exceptions to the dogma EENS.So for me, Vatican Council II is not a rupture with the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS.

Our premises are different and so our conclusions have to be different.

For Robert Fastiggi, Ralph Martin  and Phillip Blosser, professors of theology and philosophy at the Sacred Heart Major Seminary,Archdiocese of Detroit, the  Baptism of Desire and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to invisible cases, invisible people.They agree here.1 None of them claim that these are known people in 2017 or the past 100 years.

Even the  faculty at Sacred Heart agree with the philosophical principle that invisible people cannot be visible at the same time.I repeat, they agree with me that invisible people cannot be physically visible exceptions to the dogma EENS. So we are all in agreement here.There has been no denial from any one in Detroit on this point.

They may not want to accept the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS but no one is saying that there is a known case of someone saved outside the Church in the present times.We are all united on this point in Detroit.

So when Robert Fastiggi, Ralph Martin and Phillip Blosser agree that the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance, with or without the baptism of water, are not visible and personally known in our reality, there are no exceptions to the dogma EENS in 2017.All the students in Detroit would agree here.Even non Catholics would say that this reasoning is rational.

 They are not exceptions to EENS as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century and the past magisterium of the Church.There is no denial from them on this point, I repeat.

So when Archbishop Lefebvre did not accept Vatican Council II he was correct.He was being asked to accept Vatican Council II in which hypothetical cases, were considered explicit exceptions, to the dogma.Now the faculty at the Sacred Heart Major Seminary accept  that invisible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance cannot be visible exceptions to all needing to be incorporated into the Church as members for salvation.So Archbishop Lefebvre was correct,Vatican Council II with the premise was false, and once again, like in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case, the magisterium made a mistake.

The faculty like the Archdiocese Office for religious education, evangelisation etc, are not permitted to teach this. At Detroit they have to teach seminarians and lay students that invisible cases are visible at the same time and they are objective exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS. So it is obligatory to interpret Vatican Council II as a rupture with EENS and the Syllabus of Errors.If they do not teach this irrationality the professors will no more have the mandatum from the Archdiocese to teach theology and philsophy at Detroit.This is controlled ideology and they call it the deposit of the faith.

-Lionel Andrades

1.

AUGUST 9, 2017

For Ralph Martin,Robert Fastiggi and Phillip Blosser BOD etc refer to invisible cases but students at Detroit have to infer that they are visible

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/08/for-ralph-martinrobert-fastiggi-and.html

 JULY 13, 2017

Prof. Robert Fastiggi, Ralph Martin agree that invisible people cannot be visible at the same time : in agreement with Fr. Stefano Visintin's statement  http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/07/prof-robert-fastiggi-ralph-martin-agree.html