Dr. Taylor Marshall says there are no explicit cases of St. Thomas Aquinas’ baptism of desire (LG 14) but the Vatican Council II of Traditionis Custode says there are explicit cases. Yes there are no explicit cases of the baptism of desire for Bishop Athanasius Schneider but there are such cases for Pope Francis. What is invisible for Schneider and Marshall is visible for the popes

 

Dr. Taylor Marshall says there are no explicit cases of St. Thomas Aquinas’ baptism of desire (LG 14) but the Vatican Council II of Traditionis Custode says there are explicit cases. Yes there are no explicit cases of the baptism of desire for Bishop Athanasius Schneider but there are such cases for Pope Francis.

What is invisible for Schneider and Marshall is visible for the popes.

The irrational interpretation of LG 14 etc is the direction the Church will take says Archbishop Arthur Roche in his response to questions on Traditionis Custode. A few weeks earlier he referred to the New Magisterium in the Church with, of course, Vatican Council II interpreted with visible cases of LG 8, LG 14, and LG 16 etc.

The old theology says outside the Church there is no salvation and the New Theology of Pope Benedict and Pope Francis says outside the Church there is salvation. The New Theology is based upon there being known salvation outside the Church in the present times. This is factually false. But this is also the theology of Traditionis Custode which bishops have to follow.

So the two popes do not affirm the Athanasius Creed and those who want to offer/ attend the Latin Mass will also have to do the same.

But for there to be exceptions for  the Athanasius Creed, which says all must be members of the Catholic Church for salvation, the exceptions have to be explicit, they have to be objective. How can the Latin laity, for example at Dijon, France, judge the soul of another person? How can they know that some one will go to Heaven, or are in Heaven, with the baptism of desire?

So the interpretation of Vatican Council II in Traditionis Custode is wrong since invisible people cannot be visible in 2021. There are no explicit cases of Aquinas’ implicit baptism of desire, is common sense.

But this false interpretation is a political issue for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) since the time of the Letter of the Holy Office (CDF) 1949(LOHO).

Archbishop Augustine di Noia, Adjunct Secretary of the CDF told Brother Andre Marie MICM, that there is a ‘nuanced’ version of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). He meant that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance, though hypothetical and invisible always, have to be projected as practical exceptions to Feeneyite EENS. Di Noia told Brother Andre that there was no point in his coming to Rome to discuss this issue which had to be accepted by him. The CDF (Holy Office) probably said the same thing to Fr. Leonard Feeney.

Without the CDF’s ‘nuanced understanding’ we are today back to the Old Theology. There are no known exceptions for Mark 16:16 (those who do not believe will be condemned).

There are no known exceptions for John 3:5 (all need the baptism of water for salvation).

There are no known exceptions for the Great Commission. It means that when we meet a non Catholic we know that he is oriented to the fires of Hell, without Catholic faith (AG 7). Everyone needs the baptism of water. This is the Law of God the Father.

So there is no more division on doctrine and theology. We avoid the New Theology. The Council Fathers, at least some of them, at Vatican Council II and Pope Paul VI, made a mistake. They thought that there were literal cases of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance.This cannot be Magisterial. The same mistake in the LOHO also cannot be Magisterial.

 So when Pope Benedict and Cardinal Ladaria indicate that there are literal and visible cases of LG 16 etc (International Theological Commission(ITC), Christianity and the World Religions) this cannot be Magisterial. This is an irrational interpretation in two papers of the ITC. Bishop Schneider interprets LG 14 without the ITC False Premise.

So we have two interpretations of Vatican Council I1) with LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3 etc, being visible cases and 2) invisible cases.

We have two different premises and so two different conclusions. There is the 1) nontraditional conclusion which is a rupture with EENS and 2) a traditional conclusion which is a continuity with Tradition and not a practical exception for EENS.

There are two interpretations of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance in Vatican Council II and also other Magisterial Documents ( Catechisms of Trent and Pius X, Nicene Creed, Mystici Corporis etc).The error is not restricted to only Vatican Council II

So Traditionis Custode with the irrational premise supports the irrational interpretation of the Creeds, Catechisms, EENS and Church Declarations ( Joint Declaration on Justification with Lutherans etc), Statements( Balamand) and Apostolic Letters and encyclicals.

Those bishops and laity who want the Latin Mass have to go along with this schism and first class heresy.-Lionel Andrades