Wednesday, July 4, 2018

Repost : I can hold the traditional interpretation of the dogma along with invisible for us and visible for God only, baptism of desire

 JUNE 17, 2014

I can hold the traditional interpretation of the dogma along with invisible for us and visible for God only, baptism of desire

Athanasius says:
We find this same theme repeated during the early persecutions when Catechumens, not yet baptised but desirous of baptism, were saved by their desire and the sacrifice of their lives for Christ.
Lionel:
Please note that I keep repeating that the baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, for me. I do not have a problem with the baptism of desire. I accept the baptism of desire.
I accept an implicit for us baptism of desire and reject an explicit for us baptism of desire in 2014.

_______________________
 
Athanasius says:
It is patently obvious then that a strict reading of the dogma, such as you and other followers of Fr. Feeney embrace, has neither historical nor theological support.
Lionel:
A ‘strict reading of the dogma’, for me, is compatible, with the baptism of desire ( implicit).For me there is no contradiction. So I accept the baptism of desire.
I can hold the traditional interpretation of the dogma along with invisible for us and visible for God only, baptism of desire. This would not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction.
However if the baptism of desire was explicit, then there would be a contradiction and it would not be the teaching of the Church (before 1940).
The Church accepts a baptism of desire.Before 1940 it was always considered implicit for us. It was a possibility but irrelevant to the dogma. After 1940 'the magisterium' interpreted it, it seems, as visible for us and so an exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma.
-Lionel Andrades

Repost : UNANSWERED QUESTIONS ON EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS

JUNE 17, 2014


UNANSWERED QUESTIONS ON EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS

 

Lionel Andrades said...

Chrysologos said:
Just over a month ago I thought I had an adequate understanding of 'extra ecclesiam...', and the roles played by baptism of desire and invincible ignorance.

Lionel:
Now you are not sure.
May be the baptism of desire is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus,after all?
To answer that you would have to define your terms. You would have to clarify if the baptism of desire is explicit for you or implicit for you.
Does CCC mention a visible for us baptism of desire or one which is invisible ?
Your not willing to clarify this.Neither is James,Joseph Shaw or Fr.Finigin and others willing to enter unknown waters.

__________________
You obviously had a bee in your bonnet about these matters, and I endeavoured to discover the nature of both the bee and the bonnet.
Consequently I've spent many an hour perusing the CCC, following up leads, and, as far as possible, checking with original sources. As a result my knowledge has expanded enormously, and that can only be a good thing.
Lionel:
But you still cannot answer these four questions.Let me ask hem again:
1.Is Wikipedia saying for you that Lumen Gentium 16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance) is an exception to Fr.Leonard Feeney ?
2. Is Wikipedia saying for you that LG 16 is explicit and so an exception all needing to convert into the Church in the present times ?
3. Does Wikipedia indicate that all non Catholics in England do not need to enter the Church in 2014 since there are now known exceptions saved in invincible ignorance ?
4. Can the baptism of desire and being saved invincible ignorance be an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus is still the fundamental question ?
__________________
Chrysologus:
Thus, it is with some confidence I conclude:
1) The Church's teaching, through its documents and its ministers, is clear and straightforward.
Lionel:
This is vague. It would be precise if you answered so many of the questions I have asked you.

______________________
Chrysologus:
2) On the other hand, your comments on your and other blogs, with their seemingly pointless questions; their fixation with 'exceptions' (or not), and things 'visible' or 'invisible'; all conspire to confuse and befuddle what is otherwise plain to see.
Lionel:
In general Catholics assume there are exceptions to the dogma. This implies that there are VISIBLE cases.I am usually responding to this irrationality.

___________________
3) You consistently avoid addressing coherently the points I put before you, and therefore there is nothing I can usefully further say.
Lionel:
These are some of the many points between us(from above) which have not been answered.
UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
1.
1.Is Wikipedia saying for you that Lumen Gentium 16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance) is an exception to Fr.Leonard Feeney ?
2. Is Wikipedia saying for you that LG 16 is explicit and so an exception all needing to convert into the Church in the present times ?
3. Does Wikipedia indicate that all non Catholics in England do not need to enter the Church in 2014 since there are now known exceptions saved in invincible ignorance ?
4. Can the baptism of desire and being saved invincible ignorance be an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus is still the fundamental question ?
_______________

2.
59. The Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston (1949) offers further specifications. “To gain eternal salvation, it is not always required that a person be incorporated in reality (reapse) as a member of the Church, but it is necessary that one belong to it at least in desire and longing (voto et desiderio). It is not always necessary that this desire be explicit as it is with catechumens.
When one is invincibly ignorant, God also accepts an implicit desire, so called because it is contained in the good disposition of soul by which a person wants his or her will to be conformed to God’s will”.- The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without the being baptized', International Theological Commission,2007
Lionel:
What had the baptism of desire to do with the traditonal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus by Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston?
____________________________
3.
And then we have Prof. Gavin D'Costa, on the website of the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales inferring that 'a ray of the Truth' and 'seeds of the Word' are VISIBLE for us.This is the NORM in the Catholic Church in England ?
_____________________________
4.
Lionel:
59. The Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston (1949) offers further specifications. “To gain eternal salvation, it is not always required that a person be incorporated in reality (reapse) as a member of the Church, but it is necessary that one belong to it at least in desire and longing (voto et desiderio). It is not always necessary that this desire be explicit as it is with catechumens.
When one is invincibly ignorant, God also accepts an implicit desire, so called because it is contained in the good disposition of soul by which a person wants his or her will to be conformed to God’s will”.- The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without the being baptized', International Theological Commission,2007
Here it is again:
“To gain eternal salvation, it is not always required that a person be incorporated in reality (reapse) as a member of the Church, but it is necessary that one belong to it at least in desire and longing (voto et desiderio).
Note :He is mentioning this relative to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus by Fr.Leonard Feeney.
He is rejecting the literal interpretation, i.e everyone needs to convert into the Church, and he is implying that every one does not need to convert into the Church.
Every one does not need to convert for him since a person can be saved with implcit desire ! Implicit desire which is de facto. Implicit desire (baptism of desire) which is known. It would have to be known for it to be an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
Why mention baptism of desire if it is only hypothetical for him ?
_____________________
5.
2. From Wikipedia again.
This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and His Church:
"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — those too may achieve eternal salvation" (Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, 16).-Wikipedia
Lionel:
Why does Wikipedia cite Lumen Gentium 16 ? Is it implying that those saved in invincible ignorance are visible exceptions to the dogma? These cases are known to us ?
________
6.
The exact quote from the Holy Office letter is:
'Therefore, that one may attain 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'.
www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdffeeny.htm
Note that the Holy Office refers to an individual, 'one'.
Lionel:
It refers to an indvidual 'one'.That's my point! So there is one exception to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney?
Some one known and visible to be one exception to all needing to convert into the Church?
------------
7.
The dogma said everyone who does not convert is damned.
Here is one quotation from this Wikipedia entry on extra ecclesiam nulla salus. There are also others.
Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino (1441): "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the "eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."
So how can Wikipedia now say 'The Roman Catholic Church also teaches that the doctrine does not mean that everyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned'?
So for Wikpedia there must be an exception/exceptions in the present times,since every one does not need to be visibly in the Church.
An exception ? Do you know any exception in England this year ?
___________________
8.
You write with regard to Fr Finigan, 'when asked if implicit desire ... was implicit or explicit for us, he will not answer'.
This is not true. I refer you to your own blog
 (www.eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/05/frtim-finigan-responds-on-extra.html). Among much else, Fr Finigan writes:
I have indeed answered your question (several times now)
Lionel:I don't think he has answered it.You could ask him the two questions I asked Dr.Joseph Shaw and place his answer here. Or invite him here to answer the two questions I asked James.
____________________
9.
In the previous paragraph the Pope wrote,
(7) Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he be excused through ignorance beyond his control.
(ibid.)

Lionel:
In principle a person can be saved with the baptism of desire.
De facto every one needs to enter the Church and there are no known exceptions.
You would place that statement in this frame?
__________________
10.
Similarly if you ask me whether I know for certain of any individual on earth or Heaven saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance, I am not simply going to answer "No", I am going to point out that we do not know for certain of any individual being saved.
Lionel:
Your saying that you cannot see a person now saved in Heaven; saved with the baptism of desire.
This is something obvious for us all.
It is common knowledge that we cannot see the dead.
So why cannot James, Joseph Shaw and Fr.Finigan say this in public ?
___________

11.
Similarly, no one is denying all need belong to the Church to be saved,
Lionel:
They are all saying that every one in England in 2014 need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water to avoid Hell and there are no exceptions?
::::::::::
12.
Chrysologus:
For the record, the exact quote from Cardinal Danneels:
Even though it is true that Vatican II is fully rooted in our Catholic tradition, it is equally true that it launched a development and a deepening of that tradition, which here and there shows a discontinuity with past thinking and practice.
(www.rcsouthwark.co.uk/yof_card_danneels_lecture.pdf)
Lionel:
There is no discontinuity with past thinking in Vatican Council II for me.The Council is traditional.
Chrysologos:
Clearly nothing there about doctrinal breaks, no wholesale breaks, and definitely no mention of who is saved and who is not.
Regrettably you continue to muddy the otherwise clear waters of Church teaching, and you sully the good name of excellent bishops and priests by imputing unorthodoxy to their words.
Lionel:
Is Cardinal Daneels saying that every one in England in 2014 need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water to avoid Hell and there are no exceptions? Nostra Aetate is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus?
_______________________________________

Here are Catholic Religious including an Archbishop who has answered the questions you are avoiding.
 Catholic Religious contradict most Catholic priests and nuns : Nostra Aetate is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus
_______________

These links could help.

The box of mangos
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/01/the-box-of-mangoes.html

Why do you use the words ‘visible’ and ‘invisible’ ?: It is because others are using it unknown to them http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/why-do-you-use-words-visible-and.html#links
-Lionel Andrades

http://www.lovingit.co.uk/2014/05/blessings.html#comments

Repost : In Catechesis in Catholic families the right hand column is used in the intepretation of magisterial documents, including Vatican Council II

JUNE 17, 2014

In Catechesis in Catholic families the right hand column is used in the intepretation of magisterial documents, including Vatican Council II

Lionel Andrades said...

Would you agree that in all catechesis in Catholic families, they are using the right hand column in the intepretation of magisterial documents, including Vatican Council II ?

All salvation referred to in Vatican Council II i.e saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16), imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3),seeds of the Word (AG 11), good and holy things in other religions (NA 2) etc are either:

LEFT HAND SIDE COLUMN or RIGHT HAND COLUMN
implicit                                   or    explicit for us.
hypothetical                          or    known in reality.
invisible                                 or    visible in the flesh.
dejure ( in principle)            or    defacto ( in fact ).
subjective                             or    objective.

So families, parents, cathechists,can choose from the left hand sideor the right hand side column.
If the right hand side column is chosen then Vatican Council II contradicts itself. LG 16 ( invincible ignorance is an exception to all needing to convert) is contradicted by Ad Gentes 7, which says all need to convert into the Catholic Church.

If the left hand side column is chosen then Vatican Council II does not contradict itself. LG 16 does not contradict AG 7 and LG 14.

Most Catholic families interpret Vatican Council II with the right hand side values.
 

There are Catholic religious and lay persons who use the the left hand side column in the interpretation of magisterial text

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/there-are-catholic-religious-and-lay.html#links
 
 
Roman Forum Summer Conference this month will use the right hand side column in the interpretation of Vatican Council II
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/roman-forum-summer-conference-this.html#links

_______________________________________________


Lionel Andrades said...

In family catechesis the irrational concept of VISIBLE exceptions is used in general.
Why do you use the words 'visible' and 'invisible' ?: It is because others are using it unknown to them
Why do you use the words 'visible' and 'invisible' I am asked.

I refer to invisible and visible cases since most people are unaware. They are using the concept 'visible' when talking about Catholic salvation. It is they who first use the irrationality of visible exceptions. So I explain the difference between visible and invisible exceptions.

They tell me that all do not need to enter the Catholic Church but only those who know about Jesus and the Church. In other words those who know and do not know are VISIBLE to us on earth. We know these cases in real life.

Then they say that every one needs to enter the Catholic Church except for those in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. In other words these cases are VISIBLE to us in real life. We know cases in 2014 saved with the baptism of desire etc . So they are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Then they say every one does not need to enter the Church and all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church. What has all who are saved, are saved through Jesus and the Church, have to do with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus? Again it is inferred subtly that there are known cases saved without the baptism of water in other religions. They are VISIBLE to us . So all do not need to enter the Church for salvation.

Whenever someone says there are exceptions he is implying that there are VISIBLE exceptions.

They say Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for denying the baptism of desire. In other words, he would not accept a VISIBLE baptism of desire. 

They say Nostra Aetate 2 is a revolution in the Catholic Church since it contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. A person can be saved without the baptism of water and with ' a ray of the Truth' . In other words ' a ray of the Truth' is a VISIBLE exception.If it was not VISIBLE it would obviously not be an exception.

Similarly they say UR 3 has changed the Catholic Church's teachings on ecumenism. Now a Protestant can be saved in 'imperfect communion with the Church'. In other words these cases are VISIBLEin the present times, we can name some one saved in imperfect communion with the Church.

They ask why do you use the VISIBLE and INVISIBLE distinction ?

It is because just about every one is using it and doing so irrationally and unaware of it
.-
Lionel Andrades


http://www.lovingit.co.uk/2014/06/pope-francis-the-devil-hates-families.html#comments

Repost : Editor refuses to define her terms.Infers that the baptism of desire is not invisible but visible for us.SSPX has made a mistake.

JUNE 17, 2014

Editor refuses to define her terms.Infers that the baptism of desire is not invisible but visible for us.SSPX has made a mistake.

The Editor refuses to define her terms. She, like Athanasius, infers that the baptism of desire is not invisible but visible for us.
I have asked her to clarify her terms but she will not. Perhaps she realizes already that the SSPX has made a mistake.
She has pulled down posts related to the issue.Here are some of them.
 
This ‘theoretical’ case can be saved.Once again I am asking you to please clarify your terms http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/this-theoretical-case-can-be-savedonce.html#links
 
I can hold the traditional interpretation of the dogma along with invisible for us and visible for God only, baptism of desire http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/can-hold-traditional-interpretation-of.html#links    
The Good Thief is not an exception to all needing the baptism of water 
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/the-good-thief-is-not-exception-to-all.html#links
   
Hundreds of saints have used what the secular media calls ‘the rigorist interpretation’ of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/hundreds-of-saints-have-used-what.html#links

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre did not accept Vatican Council II with an irrational inference.He was correct. The Holy Spirit cannot teach error
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/archbishop-marcel-lefebvre-did-not.html
   
At one of the two times, the magisterium has to be wrong
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/at-one-of-two-times-magisterium-has-to.html
-Lionel Andrades

http://catholictruthblog.com/2014/06/14/bishop-schneider-schism-looming/

Repost : 'Subsistit it'(LG 8) is not a VISIBLE exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

JUNE 18, 2014

'Subsistit it'(LG 8) is not a VISIBLE exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Vatican Council II (LG 8) is not a known exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Tradition.There is no known salvation  outside the Church.
 
@Annie:
"The Council has, therefore, admitted that the Church of Christ is something bigger than the Roman Catholic Church."
Lionel:
Annie in Ad Gentes 7 the Council says all need faith and baptism for salvation. This is also expressed in Lumen Gentium 14.
The Council is affirming extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It is in accord with Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston.
So we should also affirm a Vatican Council II in accord with extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
If LG 8 is interpreted as saying there is salvation outside the Church, it is important to note that these cases are INVISIBLE for us. They are not VISIBLE. So they cannot be exceptions to Ad Gentes 7. There cannot be known salvation outside the Church.
Objectively there is no such case as Viterbo has observed.
There is nothing in the Council which contradicts AG 7 when you are aware of the INVISIBLE-VISIBLE distinction.



Annie:
 The 'is' which they turned into 'subsists' fuelled the idea of 'full communion' and 'and partial communion' which cannot be found in the Magisterium prior to VII. I would take a guess that this 'full' and 'partial' innovation is what is at the root of Bergoglio's 'peripheries' business - the sense being that everything is 'Church' - either undiltued or slightly diluted, full or partial. Doesn't really explain his dislike of sphere's and his admiration of polyhedron's however.
Lionel:
Either way 'subsistit it' is not a VISIBLE exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is the MISSING LINKwe have to be aware of it when interpreting Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston and some other magisterial documents (Redemptoris Mission, Mystici Corporis etc).
-Lionel Andrades

Repost : Foederatio Internationalis Una Voce official has nothing to say

MAY 28, 2014

Foederatio Internationalis Una Voce official has nothing to say

Dr. Joseph Shaw is the Chairman of the Latin Mass Society of England. He is the Treasurer of the International Federation Una Voce (FIUV) 1,recognized by the Holy See.He will not affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in accord with Vatican Council II (AG 7) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 846).He will not affirm the dogma pe se. For him  Nostra Aetate 2 is possibly an explicit exception to the traditional interpretation of  Fr.Leonard Feeney and the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. The  Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary are traditionalists,  registered with Una Voce.They affirm the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is the interpretation of the  Church Councils, the popes,the saints and Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston.
 
Dr.Joseph Shaw implies that Nostra Aetate 2 is an exception to the traditional teaching on salvation. He will not correct this error made by Mr. Gavin D'Costa, a Catholic  professor of theology at the University of Bristol. On a video shown on the websites of the University of Bristol and the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales, D'Costa says that not all need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation. He is implying, that  he knows some people in England who do not need to convert into the Church with 'faith and baptism' (AG 7) for salvation. There is no correction from Joseph  Shaw. This is probably the official position of Una  Voce for those priests who offer the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM).
 
It may be mentioned that those saved with 'a ray of the Truth' (NA 2) are invisible for us. Vatican Council II is referring to a probability, something known only to God. The text of Vatican Council II does not state that these cases are explicit for us or  an exception to the dogma on exclusive salvation. Gavin D'Costa infers that these cases are explicit for us . This is heresy. It is a denial of an ex cathedra dogma which Pope Pius XII called an infallible teaching.(Letter of the Holy Office 1949).It is also a denial of Vatican Council II (AG 7) etc.
 
What is the position of Una Voce on extra ecclesiam nulla salus with reference to Vatican Council II ? Is Vatican Council II in agreement with the traditional interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation as held by hundreds of Catholic saints including the founders of religious communities affiliated with Una Voce ?
Joseph Shaw who is a lecturer at Oxford, will not answer on his blog LMS Chairman, TWO QUESTIONS  2 on the Catholic Faith. Also at conferences on Vatican Council II he does not state that the Council is in agreement with the dogma on salvation.So the Church's teaching on other religions and salvation has not changed after Vatican Council II. It is the traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no exceptions.(NA 2, UR 3 etc being possibilities and not exceptions).
When James Bogle was elected the President of FIUV last year  he said ' young people are especially aware of the importance of rediscovering the Church’s roots. “It’s an enjoyable voyage of discovery. Moreover, if Catholics don’t understand their roots then it’s difficult for them to evangelize. When you attempt to evangelise, people will ask you ‘what are the roots of your belief and Church?’
If the answer is: ‘I don’t know, but I think you should join us’, that isn’t going to be terribly persuasive. Why should someone come to the faith if we can’t give a proper historical perspective to
our religion and what its roots are? Even people who aren’t particularly attracted to the traditional
rite of the Mass want to know about its history. It is not something that those seriously interested in
evangelisation can afford to ignore.” 3.
 
In the 'roots of the Church' ,from  the Church Fathers to the Fathers of Vatican Council II, there is an affirmation of the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no known exceptions.This has also been the position of the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) in its General Chapter Statement of 2012. Is it also the position of FIUV ?
-Lionel Andrades


Contacts:
President: Mr. James Bogle, Email: president@fiuv.org
Secretary: Mr. Thomas Murphy, Email: secretary@fiuv.org
Treasurer: Dr. Joseph Shaw, Email: treasurer@fiuv.org
 
2.
TWO QUESTIONS
1) Do we personally know the dead now saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc, can we see them, are they physically visible to us in 2014 ? ANSWER: NO WE CANNOT SEE THEM, THEY ARE NOT VISIBLE TO US  or  YES WE CAN SEE THEM THEY ARE VISIBLLE TO US ON EARTH.
 
2) Since we do not known any of these in real life, they are not visible for us, there are no known exceptions to the literal interpreattion of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or Ad  Genets 7 which states all need faith and baptism for salvation ?
ANSWER: THEY ARE NOT EXCEPTIONS TO EXTRA ECCLESIAM  NULA SALUS AND AD GENTES 7 or THEY ARE EXCEPTIONS TO EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS AN D AD GENTES 7
 
3.

Repost : Two weeks and no clarification from the University of Bristol administration :objective error and factually incorrect information about the Catholic Church

MAY 5, 2014

Two weeks and no clarification from the University of Bristol administration :objective error and factually incorrect information about the Catholic Church

Since April 24,2014 I have been writing on this subject and sending these blog posts to the University of Bristol ,England and the Conference of Catholic Bishops of England and Wales and no one is responding.It has been a few years since I have been sending blog posts on this subject to the CBEW and no one responds.
 
It is now some two weeks and there is no clarification from the University of Bristol administration or Academic Staff on this issue. They have not admitted that an objective error has been made by the university.
Firstly we cannot see the dead saved who are alleged exceptions to the traditional teaching on salvation and other religions i.e all need to enter the Catholic Church to go to Heaven.
Secondly there is no text in Vatican Council II which states that there are explicit exceptions to the traditional teaching on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
So the University of Bristol is misrepresenting facts about the Catholic Church and its teaching as is the present CBEW.
-Lionel Andrades
 University of Bristol logo.svg
April 24, 2014

Prof. Gavin D'Costa on the Bishop's Conference website infers Vatican Council II cites explicit exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/04/prof-gavin-dcosta-on-bishops-conference.html

 
April 25, 2014

Prof.Gavin D'Costa responds : does not deny that he made a factual mistake

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/04/profgavin-dcosta-responds-does-not-deny.html#links

Gavin D'Costa, professor of Theology at the University of Bristol infers deceased-saved are visible in England :official policy of the university?

 
April 26, 2014
 
April 26, 2014
 
April 27, 2014

The University of Bristol, England must not allege that we Catholics accept an irrationality

 
April 28, 2014
 
April 29, 2014

Common deception among educated Catholics : University of Bristol promotes a falsehood

 
April 29, 2014
 
April 30, 2014
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/04/bristol-univesrity-had-discussion-on.html
 
May 3, 2014
 
May 5, 2014
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/05/the-baroness-of-richmond-and-chancellor.html