The judges, canonists and employees at the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura , will tell you that there are exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).This is how the popes since Paul VI, and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF) interpreted the Council and EENS.In other words, there are physically visible cases of being saved with the baptism of desire(BOD),baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I).Also for them, in Vatican Council II, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc refer to physically visible non Catholics saved outside the Church.Since only if there are objective cases can there be exceptions. Invisible people cannot be exceptions to 16th century EENS.Since there are practical exceptions to Feeneyite EENS for them they imply that there are literally known cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church.
It is common for Catholics to assume that there are exceptions to EENS and these exceptions include the BOD, BOB and I.I. When I bring this to their attention they say they know that there are no physically visible cases of BOD, BOB and I.I and LG 8 etc.
Then I ask, "Are you affirming Feeneyite EENS?".They will not answer.Since for Fr. Leonard Feeney there were no physically visible cases of BOD etc.There was not baptism of desire, as an exception to EENS for him.
I ask, "Are you affirming EENS like the missionaries in the 16th century?".They do not answer.
Since they have to say that BOD, BOB and I.I are exceptions to EENS. This was the mistake made by the Council Fathers at Vatican Council II.
This was also the mistake made by the cardinals who issued the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney.
The Letter of the Holy Office assumed BOD and I.I were exceptions to EENS, as it was known to Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.
Vatican Council II( AG 7 and LG 14) assume that BOD and I.I are exceptions to all needing faith and baptism for salvation.
Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation but also mentions BOD, and I.I.Why? Since the Council Fathers made a mistake.They assumed that there were visible cases of BOD and I.I.
Cardinal Ratzinger and Fr. Luiz Ladaria sj in two papers of the International Theological Commission assume that LG 16 and GS 22 in Vatican Council II, are exceptions to the exclusivist interpretation of EENS according to Fr. Leonard Feeney.
It is common for Catholics to assume that there are exceptions to EENS and these exceptions include the BOD, BOB and I.I. When I bring this to their attention they say they know that there are no physically visible cases of BOD, BOB and I.I and LG 8 etc.
Then I ask, "Are you affirming Feeneyite EENS?".They will not answer.Since for Fr. Leonard Feeney there were no physically visible cases of BOD etc.There was not baptism of desire, as an exception to EENS for him.
I ask, "Are you affirming EENS like the missionaries in the 16th century?".They do not answer.
Since they have to say that BOD, BOB and I.I are exceptions to EENS. This was the mistake made by the Council Fathers at Vatican Council II.
This was also the mistake made by the cardinals who issued the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney.
The Letter of the Holy Office assumed BOD and I.I were exceptions to EENS, as it was known to Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.
Vatican Council II( AG 7 and LG 14) assume that BOD and I.I are exceptions to all needing faith and baptism for salvation.
Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation but also mentions BOD, and I.I.Why? Since the Council Fathers made a mistake.They assumed that there were visible cases of BOD and I.I.
Cardinal Ratzinger and Fr. Luiz Ladaria sj in two papers of the International Theological Commission assume that LG 16 and GS 22 in Vatican Council II, are exceptions to the exclusivist interpretation of EENS according to Fr. Leonard Feeney.
A discerning school boy could say that all this is a lie.
An legal advocate would say that this is false.
A non Catholic could say that we cannot see any one in Heaven or on earth, saved without faith and baptism in the Catholic Church.So if the teaching in the Church is outside the Church there are no exceptions, these cases are not exceptions.
But Pope Francis in his reference to the New Evangelisation, the other day, referred to ' the Magisterium of Vatican Council II'. He was not referring to a Vatican Council II interpreted without the false premise. It was not a Vatican Council II interpreted with LG 8, LG 14,LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc referring to only hypothetical cases .Otherwise the pope would have been saying that there are no exceptions to the past exclusivist ecclesiology, an ecumenism of return and 16th century EENS. They could not be exceptions to Jesus' teaching in John 3:5(all need the baptism of water for salvation), Mark 16:16( those who do not believe in Jesus in the Catholic Church will be condemned) and Matt.7:13-14( the two gates-most people choose Hell).
There were exceptions for him and Pope Benedict. So his interpretation of Vatican Council II violates the Principle of Non Contradiction. How can invisible people on earth or in Heaven be visible and objective exceptions to the teaching on all needing faith and baptism for salvation? Where are the literal cases in 2019 for there to be exceptions? It is a fact of life that we cannot see or meet any of these 'exceptions' in real life.
So the Vatican Tribunal will hear cases, in which the defendant and plaintiff, will interpret Vatican Council II with the irrationality.The canonists will plead cases assuming there are exceptions in Vatican Council II to EENS according to the missionaries in the 16th century.
To persist with this error after being informed would be dishonest and unethical.I have been writing on this issue for the last few years and it seems as if many Catholics and non Catholics, want to persist with this error.
The new Vatican offices for Communication and Evangelisation also interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise to create a non traditionalist and heretical conclusion, as does the Signatura. They will not interpret Vatican Council II in harmony with the Ignatius, Aquinas and Augustine teaching on there being exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church only.
There were exceptions for him and Pope Benedict. So his interpretation of Vatican Council II violates the Principle of Non Contradiction. How can invisible people on earth or in Heaven be visible and objective exceptions to the teaching on all needing faith and baptism for salvation? Where are the literal cases in 2019 for there to be exceptions? It is a fact of life that we cannot see or meet any of these 'exceptions' in real life.
So the Vatican Tribunal will hear cases, in which the defendant and plaintiff, will interpret Vatican Council II with the irrationality.The canonists will plead cases assuming there are exceptions in Vatican Council II to EENS according to the missionaries in the 16th century.
To persist with this error after being informed would be dishonest and unethical.I have been writing on this issue for the last few years and it seems as if many Catholics and non Catholics, want to persist with this error.
The new Vatican offices for Communication and Evangelisation also interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise to create a non traditionalist and heretical conclusion, as does the Signatura. They will not interpret Vatican Council II in harmony with the Ignatius, Aquinas and Augustine teaching on there being exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church only.
The members of the Apostolic Signatura are:
Cardinals
- Dominique Mamberti, Prefect
- Agostino ValliniPrefect Emeritus
- Raymond Leo Burke Prefect Emeritus
- Béchara Boutros Raï
- Antonio Maria Rouco Varela
- Zenon Grocholewski
- Attilio Nicora
- Péter Erdő
- Lluís Martínez Sistach
- Leonardo Sandri
- Francesco Coccopalmerio
- Giuseppe Versaldi
- Edoardo Menichelli
Bishops
- Stanislav Zvolenský
- Filippo Iannone
- Fernando José Monteiro Guimarães
- Heinrich Mussinghoff
- Ryszard Kasyna
- Antoni Stankiewicz
- Frans Daneels
- Johannes Willibrordus Maria Hendriks
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò,now in hiding, served as the Apostolic Nuncio to the United States and was the Secretary-General of the Governorate of the Vatican City State and he too interpreted Vatican Council II like Pope Benedict and Pope Francis.He too uses the false premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II,extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Catechisms and Creeds.-Lionel Andrades
Posts
