Tuesday, June 8, 2021
Repost : If you are physically not present at the bus stop you are not a passenger on the bus.You are not there.The baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance are 'zero cases' in our reality says the apologist John Martignoni. They are not there.
MAY 2, 2021
If you are physically not present at the bus stop you are not a passenger on the bus.You are not there.The baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance are 'zero cases' in our reality says the apologist John Martignoni. They are not there.
If you are physically not present at the bus stop you are not a passenger on the bus.You are not there.
The baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance are 'zero cases' in our reality says the apologist John Martignoni. They are not there.
The baptism of desire and invincible ignorance and the baptism of blood are not exceptions for extra ecclesiam nulla salus wrote Bishop Thomas E. Gullickson, on his blog in answer to a question.
Catholic priests in Rome have confirmed that the baptism of desire was never an exception to Feeneyite EENS. -Lionel Andrades
DECEMBER 17, 2020
According to Archbishop Thomas Gullickson there are no cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance in our reality and so they are not objective exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The Amercian Archbishop is not using the false premise
According to Archbishop Thomas Gullickson there are no cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance in our reality and so they are not objective exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The Amercian Archbishop is not using the false premise. - Lionel Andrades
_____________________
SATURDAY, JANUARY 14, 2017The two popes have got it wrong while an American archbishop and an Italian Vice Rector and professor of theology have got it correct.Pope Francis and Pope Benedict are fallibly rejecting an infallible teaching by using an irrational premise while Bishop Thomas E.Gullickson and Fr. Stefano Visintin osb have detected the irrational premise.1The two popes still use the irrational premise and so Vatican Council II (Cushingite) is a rupture with Tradition.They are objectively wrong when they assume that Lumen Gentium 16 etc refers to personally known cases.So there is rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known, for example, to the 16th century missionaries.
SATURDAY, JANUARY 14, 2017
The two popes have got it wrong while an American archbishop and an Italian Vice Rector and professor of theology have got it correct.
Pope Francis and Pope Benedict are fallibly rejecting an infallible teaching by using an irrational premise while Bishop Thomas E.Gullickson and Fr. Stefano Visintin osb have detected the irrational premise.1
The two popes still use the irrational premise and so Vatican Council II (Cushingite) is a rupture with Tradition.They are objectively wrong when they assume that Lumen Gentium 16 etc refers to personally known cases.So there is rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known, for example, to the 16th century missionaries.
The two popes would also contradict the apologist John Martignoni and many Catholic priests in Rome.
HISTORIC MAGISTERIAL HERESY
The present magisterium of Cardinal Muller is teaching heresy.It has rejected the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, according to an interview of Cardinal Muller by Edward Pentin for the National Catholic Register.Cardinal Muller assumes invisible cases of being saved in invincible ignorance etc are visible exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS.So he has rejected the dogma EENS whose text does not mention any exceptions when it was defined by three Church Councils. This is magisterial and ideological and it is approved heresy.
In March 2016 Pope Benedict confirmed in the Avvenire interview that extra ecclesiam nulla salus was no more like it was for the 16th century missionaries. So we have the present magisterium opposing the past magisterium.It is saying that the Holy Spirit was wrong. This accusation is based on alleged known salvation outside the Church.There are visible and known cases for them of what is invisible.
With Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) there is no clash with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the ecclesiology of the past.However the two popes and Cardinal Muller will not interpret Vatican Council II without the irrational premise. Since this would create a political storm with the Left.
So Catholics in general , who do not know theology, just have to live with this magisterial heresy.
-Lionel Andrades
1
Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson the Nuncio to Ukraine has answered the two questions on the Catholic Faith on his blog Deo Volente Ex Anima.
2.Dear Archbishop Thomas Gullickson,There are three types of baptism water, desire and blood.You would agree that desire and blood are graces of God and are known only to God. We do not know anyone on earth saved with the baptism of desire or blood in 2012. So while in principle we accept the baptism of desire and blood we know they are not visible and repeatable as the baptism of water.So I come back to my question:1. Do we know in the year 2012 any one saved in invincible ignorance, the baptism of desire, a good conscience, seeds of the word (AG 11), imperfect communion with the Church(UR) ?Lionel: The answer would be no we do not? Since these cases are known only to God.2. If we do not know any of these cases in 2012 can they be considered exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors?Lionel: So if we do not personally know any of these cases can they be considered de facto (explicit ) exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus?In ChristLionelThomas E. Gullickson November 19, 2012 10:39 AMLionel, Thank you!To my mind your analysis is air tight. How can we know what is known to God alone? Our point of departure is Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus Est. Everything beyond baptism by water and the word is caught up in the mystery of Divine Providence and God's infinite mercy."Imperfect communion" is ecclesiological terminology which says nothing about the eternal salvation of an individual soul. Invincible ignorance goes well for matters of conscience and moral culpability, but otherwise I'd like to think that many people around the world A.D. find themselves in the same situation as people B.C. that is, with no possibility to know Christ. We think of St. Francis Xavier wanting to roust out of the universities of Europe as many as possible for the mission in India or of his urgency to reach China.Simply said, anyone who claims that in 2012 we don't stand in continuity with the great tradition of the Church or that for some reason we are less anxious for souls today, is simply spinning and has not understood the thrust of Vatican II.
Cardinal Muller for ideological reasons has changed doctrine with an irrational theology to create magisterial heresy
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/01/cardinal-muller-for-ideological-reasons.html_________________________
NOVEMBER 19, 2012
Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson has said that the Society of St.Pius X must know that adherence to Vatican Council II and the Catechism does not put them at odds with Tradition.
Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson has reponded to two other questions and has said the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) must know that adherence to Vatican Council II and the Catechisms of the Catholic Church is not at odds with Tradition.
Here are the posts on the blog Deo Volente e Animo.
-Lionel AndradesDear Archbishop Thomas E. GullicksonThank you for your answer!We have two interpretations of Vatican Council II.A. We do not know in the year 2012 any one saved in invincible ignorance, the baptism of desire, a good conscience, seeds of the word, imperfect communtion with the Church etc and Vatican Council II does not contradict Tradition.B.We do know in the year 2012 persons saved in invincible ignorance, the baptism of desie, a good conscience, seeds of the word, imperfect communtion with the Church etc and Vatican Council II does contradict Tradition.B is obviously irrational, since we cannot see the deaceased on earth.It is also non traditional.So the SSPX could choose interpretation A which is in keeping with their position on other religions ?When they say they want to continue criticizing the Council they could mean they want to criticize interpretation B.Similarly when Arcbishop Augustine Di Noia says the SSPX has to accept Vatican Council II's teaching on the Jews ( and other religions) he is referring to interpretation B.The SSPX could still hold the traditional teaching on Jews and other non Catholics according to Vatican Council II with interpretation A?In ChristLionelRepliesThomas E. GullicksonNovember 19, 2012 12:01 PMLionel,The leaders of SSPX are smarter than I am. They have to know that adherence to the Council and the Catechism does not put them at odds with what the Church has taught always and everywhere. I do not think that the last word has been said on living and dealing with the tension between zeal for souls and respect for those outside the only communion with the Church which I can know, the visible one.
Implicit intention, invincible ignorance and a good conscience (LG 16) in Vatican Council II do not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus –John Martigioni
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/implicit-intention-invincible-ignorance.html#links
Repost : Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson says Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors
NOVEMBER 19, 2012
Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson says Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors
We do not cases in 2012 saved in invincible ignorance, the baptism of desire, a good conscience, seeds of the word and imperfect communion with the Church he says on his blog.
Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson the Nuncio to Ukraine has answered the two questions on the Catholic Faith on his blog Deo Volente Ex Anima .
Dear Archbishop Thomas Gullickson,There are three types of baptism water, desire and blood.You would agree that desire and blood are graces of God and are known only to God. We do not know anyone on earth saved with the baptism of desire or blood in 2012. So while in principle we accept the baptism of desire and blood we know they are not visible and repeatable as the baptism of water.So I come back to my question:1. Do we know in the year 2012 any one saved in invincible ignorance, the baptism of desire, a good conscience, seeds of the word (AG 11), imperfect communion with the Church(UR) ?Lionel: The answer would be no we do not? Since these cases are known only to God.2. If we do not know any of these cases in 2012 can they be considered exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors?Lionel: So if we do not personally know any of these cases can they be considered de facto (explicit ) exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus?In ChristLionel
Thomas E. GullicksonNovember 19, 2012 10:39 AMLionel, Thank you!To my mind your analysis is air tight. How can we know what is known to God alone? Our point of departure is Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus Est. Everything beyond baptism by water and the word is caught up in the mystery of Divine Providence and God's infinite mercy."Imperfect communion" is ecclesiological terminology which says nothing about the eternal salvation of an individual soul. Invincible ignorance goes well for matters of conscience and moral culpability, but otherwise I'd like to think that many people around the world A.D. find themselves in the same situation as people B.C. that is, with no possibility to know Christ. We think of St. Francis Xavier wanting to roust out of the universities of Europe as many as possible for the mission in India or of his urgency to reach China.Simply said, anyone who claims that in 2012 we don't stand in continuity with the great tradition of the Church or that for some reason we are less anxious for souls today, is simply spinning and has not understood the thrust of Vatican II.
The American Archbishop indicates that 'the thrust of Vatican II' is traditional.
-Lionel Andradeshttp://deovolenteexanimo.blogspot.it/2012/11/a-little-adjunct-to-yesterdays-post.html?showComment=1353318215335
Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson says Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/archbishop-thomas-egullickson-says.html#links
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/archbishop-thomas-egullickson-says.html#links
DEAN OF THEOLOGY AT ST. ANSELM SAYS THERE ARE NO KNOWN EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUShttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/10/dean-of-theology-at-st-anselm-says.html#links
CANTATE DOMINO, COUNCIL OF FLORENCE ON EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS IS DE FIDE AND NOT CONTRADICTED BY VATICAN COUNCIL II- Fr. Nevus Marcello O.PBRAZILIAN PRIEST SAYS VATICAN COUNCIL II DOES NOT CONTRADICT DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
Catholic religious contradict Bishop Fellay : Nostra Aetate is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/catholic-religious-contradict-bishop.html#links
I follow the Catechism of Trent in agreement with Vatican Council II and the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
I follow the Catechism of Trent in agreement with Vatican Council II and the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
______________________________________________
SUNDAY, JUNE 23, 2019
Archbishop Thomas E.Gulllickson, the Apostolic Nuncio to Switzerland and Liechtenstein contradicts Archbishops Morandi and Di Noia, Secretaries at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF).
Archbishop Gullickson answered my two questions on his blog.
Like me, he would answer:-
TWO POINTS/ TWO QUESTIONS
1. Unknown and invisible cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) are NOT personally known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).So I would REJECT a new version of EENS with BOD,BOB and I.I being literal exceptions.
2.Unknown and physically invisible cases of being saved mentioned in Vatican Council II ( LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3 NA 2, GS 22 etc) are also NOT personally known examples of salvation outside the Church in 2019 and so they are NOT exceptions to 16th- century EENS.They do NOT contradict the Magisterium and missionaries of that time.
So the Apostolic Nuncio would support 16th century extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), the past ecclesiology and an ecumenism of return.But the Archbishop-Secretaries at the CDF, like the present two popes, would reject 16th century EENS, the past exclusivist ecclesiology, an ecumenism of return, the Syllabus of Errors and the Athansius Creed.
Similarly there would be cardinals and bishops who would agree with the American Nuncio.
Fr. Stefano Visintin osb, Rector, University of St. Anselm, Rome answered the two questions, which I asked him,and was in agreement with the Apostolic Nuncio. It is the same for John Martignoni, apologist at the EWTN.
They are making an observation of life, an empirical observation when they say that there are no physically visible cases of the BOD, BOB and I.I. Upon this observation was based the old salvation theology which says outside the Church there is no salvation.
For the present two popes and the CDF, there are physically visible cases of BOD, BOB and I.I. Upon this observation there is the New Theology , which says outside the Church there is known salvation ; there is salvation.
So now for the CDF Secretaries - the Apostolic Nuncio and many priests in Rome would legally, not be Catholic.This is the change in status for the St. Benedict Center.
Brother Andre Marie MICM, in his correspondence with the CDF in 2016 has indicated that there are no known cases of BOD, BOB and I.I in our reality,and that they would be known only to God.Since I.I, BOB and BOD are not exceptions to EENS for him he is saying that in Heaven there are only Catholics.
Brother Andre Marie MICM, in his correspondence with the CDF in 2016 has indicated that there are no known cases of BOD, BOB and I.I in our reality,and that they would be known only to God.Since I.I, BOB and BOD are not exceptions to EENS for him he is saying that in Heaven there are only Catholics.
This is unacceptable, legally and canonically, for the CDF and the Diocese of Manchester which has announced Precepts of Prohibitions.
So the same prohibitions would apply to cardinals, bishops, religious communities and priests and nuns who affirm Vatican Council II and EENS rationally and traditionally and so say that in Heaven there are only Catholics.
It would mean that the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in the Diocese of Worcester, USA, under Bishop Robert McManus, are also outside the Church and are not Catholics for the CDF and the Left.-Lionel Andrades
SEPTEMBER 29, 2018
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
The Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF) does not affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) in harmony with Vatican Council II. He is holding doctrinal talks with the Society of St. Pius X(SSPX) when he should be asked to recant or resign
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/12/the-prefect-of-congregation-for.html
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/12/the-prefect-of-congregation-for.html
DECEMBER 19, 2018
The secret Vatican-SSPX doctrinal talks are not being made public, even though both sides claim to be Catholic.Cardinal Ladaria uses an irrationality to interpret Vatican Council II as a rupture with EENS.So deception is in his interest https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/12/the-secret-vatican-sspx-doctrinal-talks.html
DECEMBER 13, 2018
_____________________________________________
AUGUST 18, 2018
Placuit Deo promotes an ecumenical Jesus and not Jesus according to the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church,which did not separate Jesus from faith and baptism in the Church for salvation : Sandro Magister and Edward Pentin did not know http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/08/placuit-deo-promotes-ecumenical-jesus.html
_______
_____________________________________________
AUGUST 18, 2018
Placuit Deo promotes an ecumenical Jesus and not Jesus according to the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church,which did not separate Jesus from faith and baptism in the Church for salvation : Sandro Magister and Edward Pentin did not know http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/08/placuit-deo-promotes-ecumenical-jesus.html_______
DECEMBER 17, 2020
According to John Martignoni, Catholic apologist at EWTN, the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance, are 'zero cases'. So they cannot be exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
According to John Martignoni, Catholic apologist at EWTN, the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance, are 'zero cases'. So they cannot be exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
Martignoni is not using the false premise of the Lefebvrists, liberals and present two popes.- Lionel Andrades
According to John Martignoni, Catholic apologist at EWTN, the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance, are 'zero cases'. So they cannot be exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
Martignoni is not using the false premise of the Lefebvrists, liberals and present two popes.- Lionel Andrades
APRIL 7, 2019
Dis Jesus establish a Church that teaches error, yes or no? Jesus founded one Church : yes or no ? - John Martignoni
JANUARY 22, 2015
And I feel you are saying only Catholics are truly saved....
paulasusan@ffc1b800f8aa43e I feel as though you are bashing Christians who are not Catholic...
John Martignoni@JohnMartignoni By taping a television series for EWTN? You'll have to be more specific about your allegations.paulasusan@ffc1b800f8aa43e I listened to all your downloads And I feel you are saying only Catholics are truly saved....I am listening to them again..
paulasusan@ffc1b800f8aa43e sounds as if you are saying only Catholics are going to Heaven...
John Martignoni@JohnMartignoni Since I have never said that only Catholics are going to Heaven, you'll have to be more specific as to why you heard that?
John Martignoni@JohnMartignoni I never say who goes to Heaven and who doesn't - not my job. My arguments deal with truth - who has it, who doesn't.paulasusan@ffc1b800f8aa43e
Basically by saying Catholics have the truth, then you are saying Protestants aren't or couldn't be saved....John Martignoni@JohnMartignoni Let me ask you a series of questions to explain what I teach: Did Jesus establish a church that teaches error, yes or no?John Martignoni@JohnMartignoni I agree. To continue these questions (as way of explanation for what I teach) Jesus founded one church: yes or no?
paulasusan@ffc1b800f8aa43e I can't answer that at the moment...
John Martignoni@JohnMartignoni Well, just let me know when you can answer it. The Bible does have a very clear answer, though.
Christie Young@ChristieYoung That's awesome John! I got to attend a few of your talks years ago and I still recommend you to everyone. Good Luck!
paulasusanJohn MartignonipaulasusanpaulasusanJohn MartignoniJohn MartignonipaulasusanBasically by saying Catholics have the truth, then you are saying Protestants aren't or couldn't be saved....
John MartignoniJohn MartignonipaulasusanJohn MartignoniChristie YoungMONDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2012
SSPX THE ONLY WAY OUT NOW!
Bishop Bernard Fellay please announce that John Martignoni who has a regular apologetics program on EWTN says Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma on salvation or the Syllabus of Errors.Ask the Magisterium to comment on this before you give a final decision.
It means there can only be one rational interpretation of Vatican Council II.Make sure the mainstream media knows what you are saying and reports it.
This will cause an international storm and you and John Martigioni will be at the centre of it. They will accuse you of bringing down, rationally, the liberal idols of Vatican Council II.
Bishop Bernard Fellay has said there are many interpretations of Vatican Council II but has not provided any apologetics for a traditional interpretation and neither has the Vatican. John Martignoni has given us an apologetics for Vatican Council II which is rational, traditional and simple.
Bishop Fellay needs a mechanism, something concrete, to get out of this crisis and he has it now.
If the Magisterium says the SSPX can affirm Vatican Council II in agreement with extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors, the SSPX avoids excommunication.
The SSPX needs to make an announcement in public and ask the Magisterium to define their terms precisely.
Ask the Archbishops at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to issue a clarification in public on this interpertation of Vatican Council II. If they agree, they could be saying that Vatican Council II agrees with the SSPX position on other religions. If they do not agree with this interpretation they cannot fault the SSPX, for denying Vatican Council II. The SSPX would not be denying the Council but only an interpretation of the Council.
Neither can the Magisterium say that the Holy Spirit wants the SSPX to accept the visible-dead-saved interpretation of Vatican Council II.
John Martignoni says 'zero cases of something are not exceptions'. So LG 16, AG 11,LG 8 etc are not exceptions to Tradition.
Here is a potential Press Release-Lionel Andrades
PRESS RELEASE
The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) welcomes the statement of the well known American apologist John Martignoni which says Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or the Syllabus of Errors.
The SSPX appeals to the Vatican to review John Martignoni's statement and announce if it is acceptable to them.
John Martignoni, a non Traditionalist, has said 'Zero cases of something are not exceptions'.So those saved with the baptism of desire, invincible ignorance, a good conscience, seeds of the word, imperfect communion with the Church etc are not exceptions to the dogma on salvation or the Syllabus of Errors.
This would mean that Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) is in agreement with the SSPX position on other religions and ecumenism while LG 16, LG 8,AG 11 etc do not contradict AG 7 and LG 14.This has a direct bearing on the SSPX position on religious liberty.
CCC 846 with the right interpretation affirms the dogma. CCC 846 cites AG 7 and mentions all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church. So it does not contradict AG 7 which says all need to enter the Church 'as through a door'(AG 7) and that all need 'faith and baptism' for salvation.(AG 7).
All on earth need faith and baptism for salvation and it will be God who will judge who knows and who does not know.
Similarly CCC 1257 says the Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water (given to adults with Catholic Faith) and God is not restricted to the Sacraments.This means these exceptional cases( not restricted to the Sacraments) are known to God only and so do not contradict the teaching that faith and baptism are needed for all on earth for salvation. The SSPX-Martigioni position is in agreement with Vatican Council II , the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Dominus Iesus 20 and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The Vatican's formal response to Martignoni's statement is awaited.(by Lionel Andrades for the Society of St.Pius X)
____________________________________
Update Jan 15,2015:
There was no response from the Vatican.
Many more of these reports were posted and sent to them.They act as if this problem does not exist.
They want the SSPX and the Franciscans of the Immaculate to interpret Vatican Council II with this irrationality.
This is also the official policy of EWTN and the National Catholic Register. Both are situated in Alabama,USA. There has been no comment on this issue also from the Bishop of Birmingham, Alabama,Bishop Robert J.Baker.Nor have there been further comments from John Martigioni.
Since then Dean of Theology at the University of St.Anselm, Rome has agreed with John Martigioni's statement.
-Lionel Andrades
Bishop Bernard Fellay please announce that John Martignoni who has a regular apologetics program on EWTN says Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma on salvation or the Syllabus of Errors.Ask the Magisterium to comment on this before you give a final decision.
It means there can only be one rational interpretation of Vatican Council II.Make sure the mainstream media knows what you are saying and reports it.
This will cause an international storm and you and John Martigioni will be at the centre of it. They will accuse you of bringing down, rationally, the liberal idols of Vatican Council II.
Bishop Bernard Fellay has said there are many interpretations of Vatican Council II but has not provided any apologetics for a traditional interpretation and neither has the Vatican. John Martignoni has given us an apologetics for Vatican Council II which is rational, traditional and simple.
Bishop Fellay needs a mechanism, something concrete, to get out of this crisis and he has it now.
If the Magisterium says the SSPX can affirm Vatican Council II in agreement with extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors, the SSPX avoids excommunication.
The SSPX needs to make an announcement in public and ask the Magisterium to define their terms precisely.
Ask the Archbishops at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to issue a clarification in public on this interpertation of Vatican Council II. If they agree, they could be saying that Vatican Council II agrees with the SSPX position on other religions. If they do not agree with this interpretation they cannot fault the SSPX, for denying Vatican Council II. The SSPX would not be denying the Council but only an interpretation of the Council.Neither can the Magisterium say that the Holy Spirit wants the SSPX to accept the visible-dead-saved interpretation of Vatican Council II.
John Martignoni says 'zero cases of something are not exceptions'. So LG 16, AG 11,LG 8 etc are not exceptions to Tradition.
Here is a potential Press Release
-Lionel Andrades
PRESS RELEASE
The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) welcomes the statement of the well known American apologist John Martignoni which says Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or the Syllabus of Errors.
The SSPX appeals to the Vatican to review John Martignoni's statement and announce if it is acceptable to them.
John Martignoni, a non Traditionalist, has said 'Zero cases of something are not exceptions'.So those saved with the baptism of desire, invincible ignorance, a good conscience, seeds of the word, imperfect communion with the Church etc are not exceptions to the dogma on salvation or the Syllabus of Errors.
This would mean that Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) is in agreement with the SSPX position on other religions and ecumenism while LG 16, LG 8,AG 11 etc do not contradict AG 7 and LG 14.This has a direct bearing on the SSPX position on religious liberty.
CCC 846 with the right interpretation affirms the dogma. CCC 846 cites AG 7 and mentions all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church. So it does not contradict AG 7 which says all need to enter the Church 'as through a door'(AG 7) and that all need 'faith and baptism' for salvation.(AG 7).
All on earth need faith and baptism for salvation and it will be God who will judge who knows and who does not know.
Similarly CCC 1257 says the Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water (given to adults with Catholic Faith) and God is not restricted to the Sacraments.This means these exceptional cases( not restricted to the Sacraments) are known to God only and so do not contradict the teaching that faith and baptism are needed for all on earth for salvation. The SSPX-Martigioni position is in agreement with Vatican Council II , the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Dominus Iesus 20 and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The Vatican's formal response to Martignoni's statement is awaited.
(by Lionel Andrades for the Society of St.Pius X)
____________________________________
Update Jan 15,2015:
There was no response from the Vatican.
Many more of these reports were posted and sent to them.They act as if this problem does not exist.
They want the SSPX and the Franciscans of the Immaculate to interpret Vatican Council II with this irrationality.
This is also the official policy of EWTN and the National Catholic Register. Both are situated in Alabama,USA. There has been no comment on this issue also from the Bishop of Birmingham, Alabama,Bishop Robert J.Baker.Nor have there been further comments from John Martigioni.
Since then Dean of Theology at the University of St.Anselm, Rome has agreed with John Martigioni's statement.
-Lionel Andrades
____________________________________
Update Jan 15,2015:
There was no response from the Vatican.
Many more of these reports were posted and sent to them.They act as if this problem does not exist.
They want the SSPX and the Franciscans of the Immaculate to interpret Vatican Council II with this irrationality.
This is also the official policy of EWTN and the National Catholic Register. Both are situated in Alabama,USA. There has been no comment on this issue also from the Bishop of Birmingham, Alabama,Bishop Robert J.Baker.Nor have there been further comments from John Martigioni.
Since then Dean of Theology at the University of St.Anselm, Rome has agreed with John Martigioni's statement.
-Lionel Andrades
JANUARY 20, 2015
John Martignoni is telling us something important about Vatican Council II
John Martignoni , the apologist on EWTN, who is also a member of the Diocesan Staff of Bishop Robert J.Baker, in the Diocese of Birmingham in Alabama, where the offices of EWTN and the NCR are situated, contradicts the article written on the EWTN website (by the late Fr.William Most). He also contradicts the interview of Cardinal Gerhard Muller by Edward Pentin, placed on the Vatican website.He is telling us something important about Vatican Council II.He does this when he says 'Zero cases of something are not exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus' .Even Bishop Robert Baker would agree that zero cases of something are not exceptions. This is common knowledge.It is also common knowledge that we cannot see the dead on earth.The bishop and John Martignoni would not be saying anything extraordinary.
So when Vatican Council II makes the following statement in Ad Gentes 7, it is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus as interpreted by Fr.Leonard Feeney, the Church Councils, popes and saints.It refers to zero cases.
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." 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)-Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II It does not contradict the following orthodox passage in Ad Gentes 7 which agrees with the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church.Those who are aware or are in inculpable ignorance do not contradict the necessity for all in 2015 ,to be formal members of the Catholic Church,with 'faith and baptism', to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.
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.-Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II There should not be confusion also with this line.Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching..- Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II We do not know of any one who will be damned in 2015 who did not convert, knowing about the the Church through its preaching.Neither do we know of someone who will be saved in incuplable ignorance and without the baptism of water and Catholic Faith. These lines refer to a possibility known only to God and this possibility could include receiving the baptism of water. However either way, with or without the baptism of water, this is a zero case for us.Being saved in inculpable ignorance or with implicit desire( baptism of desire) are zero cases for us.So they must not be considered exceptions.This was the objective mistake in the Marchetti Letter.-Lionel Andrades
January 19, 2015
John Martignoni , the apologist on EWTN, who is also a member of the Diocesan Staff of Bishop Robert J.Baker, in the Diocese of Birmingham in Alabama, where the offices of EWTN and the NCR are situated, contradicts the article written on the EWTN website (by the late Fr.William Most). He also contradicts the interview of Cardinal Gerhard Muller by Edward Pentin, placed on the Vatican website.He is telling us something important about Vatican Council II.He does this when he says 'Zero cases of something are not exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus' .Even Bishop Robert Baker would agree that zero cases of something are not exceptions. This is common knowledge.
It is also common knowledge that we cannot see the dead on earth.The bishop and John Martignoni would not be saying anything extraordinary.
So when Vatican Council II makes the following statement in Ad Gentes 7, it is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus as interpreted by Fr.Leonard Feeney, the Church Councils, popes and saints.It refers to zero cases.
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." 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)-Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II
It does not contradict the following orthodox passage in Ad Gentes 7 which agrees with the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church.Those who are aware or are in inculpable ignorance do not contradict the necessity for all in 2015 ,to be formal members of the Catholic Church,with 'faith and baptism', to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.
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.-Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II
There should not be confusion also with this line.
Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching..- Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II
We do not know of any one who will be damned in 2015 who did not convert, knowing about the the Church through its preaching.Neither do we know of someone who will be saved in incuplable ignorance and without the baptism of water and Catholic Faith. These lines refer to a possibility known only to God and this possibility could include receiving the baptism of water. However either way, with or without the baptism of water, this is a zero case for us.Being saved in inculpable ignorance or with implicit desire( baptism of desire) are zero cases for us.So they must not be considered exceptions.This was the objective mistake in the Marchetti Letter.
-Lionel Andrades
January 19, 2015
National Catholic Register does not comment as Jimmy Akins, Mark Shea,Edward Pentin and Pat Archbold assume the baptism of desire ( a zero case for John Martignoni) is an exception to the dogmahttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/01/national-catholic-register-does-not.html
How can the National Catholic Register call itself Catholic?Canonically the Staff Writers of the NCR cannot affirm the Nicene Creed and really mean something else.They cannot affirm a rational Vatican Council II and interpret it as a break with the past.Legally, how can they say they are 'Catholic' and infer that Catholics must reject fundamental teachings of the Church. This is all reflected in the editorial policy of the NCR.
How can Dan Burke write about Spiritual Direction, the mystics, support pro-life issues and also interpret magisterial documents (including Vatican Council II) with an irrational proposition and conclusion.?There has been no acknowledgment to the reports on this blog. It is as if they did not exist for them.Fundamental questions are not being answered. Edward Pentin,Mark Shea, Jimmy Akins and others could at least acknowledge :-1. We do not know of any exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus in 2015 so there are no exceptions to all needing the baptism of water in the Catholic Church this year.They cannot bump into a person in Alabama who is an exception, who will be saved without Catholic faith and the baptism of water.2.Before 1949 there are no references in magisterial documents to the baptism of desire or being saved in invincible ignorance, as being known and visible to us, or as being an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So there is no magisteral precedent for accepting the Marchetti letter.It has also made a factual error. It assumes that the dead who are now in Heaven are living exceptions to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.John Martignoni contradicts the Marchetti letter.-Lionel Andrades
Mark Shea ,EWTN,NCR are formally rejecting a defined dogma, the Nicene Creed and a rational Vatican Council II with their irrationality
________________________
How can the National Catholic Register call itself Catholic?
Canonically the Staff Writers of the NCR cannot affirm the Nicene Creed and really mean something else.They cannot affirm a rational Vatican Council II and interpret it as a break with the past.
Legally, how can they say they are 'Catholic' and infer that Catholics must reject fundamental teachings of the Church. This is all reflected in the editorial policy of the NCR.
How can Dan Burke write about Spiritual Direction, the mystics, support pro-life issues and also interpret magisterial documents (including Vatican Council II) with an irrational proposition and conclusion.?There has been no acknowledgment to the reports on this blog. It is as if they did not exist for them.
Fundamental questions are not being answered. Edward Pentin,Mark Shea, Jimmy Akins and others could at least acknowledge :-
1. We do not know of any exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus in 2015 so there are no exceptions to all needing the baptism of water in the Catholic Church this year.They cannot bump into a person in Alabama who is an exception, who will be saved without Catholic faith and the baptism of water.
2.Before 1949 there are no references in magisterial documents to the baptism of desire or being saved in invincible ignorance, as being known and visible to us, or as being an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So there is no magisteral precedent for accepting the Marchetti letter.It has also made a factual error. It assumes that the dead who are now in Heaven are living exceptions to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
John Martignoni contradicts the Marchetti letter.
-Lionel Andrades
Mark Shea ,EWTN,NCR are formally rejecting a defined dogma, the Nicene Creed and a rational Vatican Council II with their irrationality
________________________
MAY 19, 2014
Bishop Bernard Fellay contradicted by Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson, John Martignoni : Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
The same declaration (LG, 8) also recognizes the presence of “salvific elements” in non-Catholic Christian communities. The decree on ecumenism goes even further, adding that “the Spirit of Christ does not refrain from using these churches and communities as means of salvation, which derive their efficacy from the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.” (UR, 3)Such statements are irreconcilable with the dogma “No salvation outside of the Church,” which was reaffirmed by a Letter of the Holy Office on August 8, 1949.-Bishop Bernard Fellay, Letter to Friends and Benefactors (April 13,2014) Does LG 8 and UR 3 refer to an an explicit exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? Is implicit desire and being saved in invincible ignorance an exception to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? -L.A
The same declaration (LG, 8) also recognizes the presence of “salvific elements” in non-Catholic Christian communities. The decree on ecumenism goes even further, adding that “the Spirit of Christ does not refrain from using these churches and communities as means of salvation, which derive their efficacy from the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.” (UR, 3)Such statements are irreconcilable with the dogma “No salvation outside of the Church,” which was reaffirmed by a Letter of the Holy Office on August 8, 1949.-Bishop Bernard Fellay, Letter to Friends and Benefactors (April 13,2014)
Does LG 8 and UR 3 refer to an an explicit exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? Is implicit desire and being saved in invincible ignorance an exception to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? -L.A
Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson says Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/archbishop-thomas-egullickson-says.html#links
Fr.Joseph Pfieffer of the SSPX 'Resistance' has made the same factual error on line as Bishop Bernard Fellay
BISHOP FELLAY'S DOCTRINAL ERROR CONTRIBUTES TO THE TLM BEING TARGETED
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/03/bishop-fellays-doctrinal-error.html#links
SSPX PRIESTS CONTRADICT THE CATECHISM OF POPE PIUS X
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/03/sspx-priests-contradict-catechism-of.html#links
Catechism of Pope Pius X and Catechism of the Catholic Church 1993 do not state there is known salvation outside the Church
Catechism of Pope Pius X and Catechism of the Catholic Church 1993 do not state there is known salvation outside the Church
ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE, MICHAEL DAVIS MADE AN OBJECTIVE MISTAKE: TRADITIONALISTS ARE STILL REELINGhttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/02/archbishop-lefebvre-michael-davis-made.html#links
SSPX PRIEST SAYS THERE IS NO KNOWN EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS : BISHOP AND DISTRICT SUPERIOR SAY THERE ARE
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/04/sspx-priest-says-there-is-no-known.html#links
Doctrinal crisis within the SSPX and they don't know how to handle it
NEW REVELATION IN THE CHURCH WITH VATICAN COUNCIL II FOR FATHER PIERPAOLO PETRUCCI : EXPLICIT-IMPLICIT MIX UP
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/03/new-revelation-in-church-with-vatican.html#links
___________________________________________________ CATHOLIC PRIESTS IN ROME AGREE WITH FR.LEONARD FEENEY: THERE IS NO BAPTISM OF DESIRE THAT WE CAN KNOW OF
___________________________________________________
CATHOLIC PRIESTS IN ROME AGREE WITH FR.LEONARD FEENEY: THERE IS NO BAPTISM OF DESIRE THAT WE CAN KNOW OF
How can zero cases of something be considered exceptions ?- John Martignoni http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/sspx-only-way-out-now.html#links
JOHN MARTIGNONI SAYS VATICAN COUNCIL II IS IN AGREEMENT WITH EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS AND THE SYLLABUS: WHEN WILL THE SSPX AND THE VATICAN CURIA ACKNOWLEDGE IT? http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/john-martigioni-says-vatican-council-ii.html#links
Implicit intention, invincible ignorance and a good conscience (LG 16) in Vatican Council II do not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus –John Martignoni http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/implicit-intention-invincible-ignorance.html#links
Bishop Bernard Fellay made a factual mistake in Letter to Friends and Benefactors no. 82 : we cannot see the dead http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/05/bishop-bernard-fellay-has-made-factual.html#links
Bishop Bernard Tisseur de Mallerais repeats the error of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/05/bishop-bernard-tisseur-de-mallerais.html#links__________________
MARCH 30, 2016 Bishop Robert J. Baker and Raymond Arroyo could clarify if Mother Angelica was correct on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus since there are no known exceptions in 2016 
Bishop Robert J.Baker is the bishop the diocese of Birmingham in Alabama where EWTN is situated. John Martignoni is the Director of the Office of the New Evangelization and Stewardship in the diocese and is a well known Catholic apologist with a program on EWTN.John Martignoni has said that 'Zero cases of something are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.' In other words we do not know of any explicit exception to all needing to enter the Church for salvation in 2016.This is something obvious. We cannot see any exceptions.
Even for Mother Angelica the founder of EWTN there were no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.She had posted a list on EWTN of the popes and saints affirming the dogma like the 16th century missionaries.It was not like Pope Benedict in his recent interview with Avvenire.I have asked John Martignoni if there are any exceptions to EENS mentioned in Vatican Council II for him, since for me there are none. He will not answer.He said there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS but would not comment on Vatican Council II.Neither will Bishop Baker or the directors and officials of his diocese offices put forward an answer.They will not disagree or agree with John Martignoni and Bishop Thomas E. Gullickson who say there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS.Obviously there are no known exceptions! For Raymond Arroyo and the speakers on EWTN situated in Alabama, the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Even for EWTN 's National Catholic Register correspondents there are known exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. For Mark Shea and Edward Pentin there are known exceptions.
MOTHER ANGELICA'S EENSWhy cannot we all go back to Mother Angelica's understanding of extra ecclesiam nulla salus,as interpreted by the 16th century missionaries ? John Martignoni, says there are no known exceptions to the dogma and Bishop Robert Baker does not know of any one today who does not need to be 'card carrying member of the Church', to avoid the fires of Hell. So why cannot we affirm EENS as did Mother Angelica?
DIOCESE CLARIFICATIONThe diocese of Birmingham in Alabama and EWTN could officially affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no known exceptions in 2016.No one in the diocese knows of any exception.
EXCEPTIONS FOR THE POPEPope Benedict has said that 'the dogma has evolved' but we do not know of any exceptions, there is no known salvation outside the Church. Pope Benedict could confirm for EWTN or the diocese of Alabama, that he does not know of any one saved outside the Church, without 'faith and baptism'(AG 7, LG 14).He personally does not know of any one who would be an exception to the 16th century Catholic interpretation of the dogma.
BISHOPS MISTAKEThe liberal bishop who took over EWTN from Mother Angelica possibly told her that LG 16 for example was an exception to her understanding of EENS. In other words LG 16 referrred not to an invisible but a visible case. It would have to be somebody personally known, physically known to be an exception.Is there such a person for the present bishop in the diocese of EWTN ?
CONFIRMATION NEEDEDWe now know that the liberal bishop who initially took over EWTN, which was being criticized by the National Catholic Reporter, assumed that there were known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.He made an objective mistake we now know.So could Bishop Robert J. Baker confirm this?
RAYMOND ARROYOHe could simply confirm that there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, there are no known cases in 2016 of persons saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. He could confirm that in 2016 we do not know of any person saved with the baptism of desire and blood or in invincible ignorance, without the baptism of water .He could ask Raymond Arroyo to state his position on this issue.
FOR ME1.I personally do not know of any such case of someone being saved without the baptism of water 2.No one in the past could have known of any such case. Physically they could not see people in Heaven saved without the baptism of desire etc.Neither could they say that any particular person on earth was saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.3.Those who refer to 'the desirethereof ' (Council of Trent) do not state that these cases were explicit and personally known. It was theologians who interpreted these cases as being explicit.So when a baptism of desire list is presented, for me,there is not a single reference which says that these cases are objective or relevant to EENS.The entire list is irrelevant to EENS. They are not exceptions.4. No one who issued the Baltimore Catechism knew of a case of some one saved with 'only the desire' and without the baptism of water. So how could they speculate that 'the desire thereof' was a known baptism like the baptism of water? This was irrational. The baptism of water is physical. The baptism of desire is not.So if any of the speakers on EWTN says there is salvation outside the Church it is speculation. This speculation cannot be posited as being an explicit exception to the dogma on salvation.
AGREE WITH MEBishop Baker, Raymond Arroyo and the EWTN speakers and apologists could say for example the following. 1. There are no known cases of someone saved outside the Church past or present and so there are no known exceptions to the dogma as it was known in the 16 th century. This is a rational option.2.They could say that LG 16,LG 8, NA 2, UR 3 etc refer to invisible and not visible cases. So there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict EENS as it was known in the past.3.The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made an objective mistake when it assumed that hypothetical cases were objectively known.There are no known cases of the baptism of desire or blood or being saved in invincible ignorance without the baptism of water in 2016.
INVISIBLE OR VISIBLEAs I mentioned in a comment on a post on The Catholic World Report, for me Lumen Gentium 16 refers to an invisible case and so it does not contradict EENS. When there are no exceptions to EENS, the theology is once again traditional and rational.Is it the same for Bishop Robert J. Baker ?To change the dogma EENS is heresy. To reject it is heresy.To interpret Vatican Council II with an irrationality to produce a non traditional result, is heresy. It is not affirming Vatican Council II in line with the dogma EENS.It is changing the dogma EENS, the Nicene Creed and Vatican Council II with an irrational premise ( physically seeing people saved in Heaven without the baptism of water) and a non traditional inference ( these explicit cases in Heaven or earth are known exceptions to EENS).This is being done on EWTN and in the religious and catechetical departments of the EWTN diocese.Could we have a clarification ?.-Lionel Andrades
Bishop Bernard Tisseur de Mallerais repeats the error of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/05/bishop-bernard-tisseur-de-mallerais.html#links
__________________
MARCH 30, 2016
Bishop Robert J. Baker and Raymond Arroyo could clarify if Mother Angelica was correct on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus since there are no known exceptions in 2016
Bishop Robert J.Baker is the bishop the diocese of Birmingham in Alabama where EWTN is situated. John Martignoni is the Director of the Office of the New Evangelization and Stewardship in the diocese and is a well known Catholic apologist with a program on EWTN.
John Martignoni has said that 'Zero cases of something are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.' In other words we do not know of any explicit exception to all needing to enter the Church for salvation in 2016.This is something obvious. We cannot see any exceptions.
Even for Mother Angelica the founder of EWTN there were no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.She had posted a list on EWTN of the popes and saints affirming the dogma like the 16th century missionaries.It was not like Pope Benedict in his recent interview with Avvenire.
I have asked John Martignoni if there are any exceptions to EENS mentioned in Vatican Council II for him, since for me there are none. He will not answer.He said there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS but would not comment on Vatican Council II.
Neither will Bishop Baker or the directors and officials of his diocese offices put forward an answer.
They will not disagree or agree with John Martignoni and Bishop Thomas E. Gullickson who say there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS.Obviously there are no known exceptions!
For Raymond Arroyo and the speakers on EWTN situated in Alabama, the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Even for EWTN 's National Catholic Register correspondents there are known exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. For Mark Shea and Edward Pentin there are known exceptions.
MOTHER ANGELICA'S EENS
Why cannot we all go back to Mother Angelica's understanding of extra ecclesiam nulla salus,as interpreted by the 16th century missionaries ? John Martignoni, says there are no known exceptions to the dogma and Bishop Robert Baker does not know of any one today who does not need to be 'card carrying member of the Church', to avoid the fires of Hell. So why cannot we affirm EENS as did Mother Angelica?
DIOCESE CLARIFICATION
The diocese of Birmingham in Alabama and EWTN could officially affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no known exceptions in 2016.No one in the diocese knows of any exception.
EXCEPTIONS FOR THE POPE
Pope Benedict has said that 'the dogma has evolved' but we do not know of any exceptions, there is no known salvation outside the Church. Pope Benedict could confirm for EWTN or the diocese of Alabama, that he does not know of any one saved outside the Church, without 'faith and baptism'(AG 7, LG 14).He personally does not know of any one who would be an exception to the 16th century Catholic interpretation of the dogma.
BISHOPS MISTAKE
The liberal bishop who took over EWTN from Mother Angelica possibly told her that LG 16 for example was an exception to her understanding of EENS. In other words LG 16 referrred not to an invisible but a visible case. It would have to be somebody personally known, physically known to be an exception.Is there such a person for the present bishop in the diocese of EWTN ?
CONFIRMATION NEEDED
We now know that the liberal bishop who initially took over EWTN, which was being criticized by the National Catholic Reporter, assumed that there were known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.He made an objective mistake we now know.So could Bishop Robert J. Baker confirm this?
RAYMOND ARROYO
He could simply confirm that there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, there are no known cases in 2016 of persons saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. He could confirm that in 2016 we do not know of any person saved with the baptism of desire and blood or in invincible ignorance, without the baptism of water .
He could ask Raymond Arroyo to state his position on this issue.
FOR ME
1.I personally do not know of any such case of someone being saved without the baptism of water
2.No one in the past could have known of any such case. Physically they could not see people in Heaven saved without the baptism of desire etc.Neither could they say that any particular person on earth was saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
3.Those who refer to 'the desirethereof ' (Council of Trent) do not state that these cases were explicit and personally known. It was theologians who interpreted these cases as being explicit.So when a baptism of desire list is presented, for me,there is not a single reference which says that these cases are objective or relevant to EENS.The entire list is irrelevant to EENS. They are not exceptions.
4. No one who issued the Baltimore Catechism knew of a case of some one saved with 'only the desire' and without the baptism of water. So how could they speculate that 'the desire thereof' was a known baptism like the baptism of water? This was irrational. The baptism of water is physical. The baptism of desire is not.
So if any of the speakers on EWTN says there is salvation outside the Church it is speculation. This speculation cannot be posited as being an explicit exception to the dogma on salvation.
AGREE WITH ME
Bishop Baker, Raymond Arroyo and the EWTN speakers and apologists could say for example the following.
1. There are no known cases of someone saved outside the Church past or present and so there are no known exceptions to the dogma as it was known in the 16 th century. This is a rational option.
2.They could say that LG 16,LG 8, NA 2, UR 3 etc refer to invisible and not visible cases. So there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict EENS as it was known in the past.
3.The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made an objective mistake when it assumed that hypothetical cases were objectively known.There are no known cases of the baptism of desire or blood or being saved in invincible ignorance without the baptism of water in 2016.
INVISIBLE OR VISIBLE
As I mentioned in a comment on a post on The Catholic World Report, for me Lumen Gentium 16 refers to an invisible case and so it does not contradict EENS. When there are no exceptions to EENS, the theology is once again traditional and rational.Is it the same for Bishop Robert J. Baker ?
To change the dogma EENS is heresy. To reject it is heresy.To interpret Vatican Council II with an irrationality to produce a non traditional result, is heresy. It is not affirming Vatican Council II in line with the dogma EENS.It is changing the dogma EENS, the Nicene Creed and Vatican Council II with an irrational premise ( physically seeing people saved in Heaven without the baptism of water) and a non traditional inference ( these explicit cases in Heaven or earth are known exceptions to EENS).This is being done on EWTN and in the religious and catechetical departments of the EWTN diocese.Could we have a clarification ?.
-Lionel Andrades
The local liberal bishop took over EWTN and projected being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) as an exception to Mother Angelica's understanding of the dogma on salvation
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/the-local-liberal-bishop-took-over-ewtn.html____________________________________
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/the-local-liberal-bishop-took-over-ewtn.html
____________________________________
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
