The basic issue which I keep writing about here is philosophical and not theological.

 

The basic issue which I keep writing about here is philosophical and not theological. It has a spill over into theology. The results good or bad are in theology. The fruits are there in theology. I am not offering a New Theology. Instead when philosophy is rational there is an end to the existing New Theology. We simply go back to the Old Theology without having to do anything, without having to add anything.

I am referring to the rational premise, inference and conclusion in philosophy.

I refer to Feeneyism, which is seeing invisible cases as being invisible and Cushingism which sees invisible cases as being visible- always in philosophy. This is an empirical observation just as I can physically see this computer screen in front of me.

I see the computer before me. Period. This is an observation. A physical observation.

In the same way I can see a baby or an adult being given the baptism of water over a font. This something I see with my eyes. It is a visible case.

I cannot see someone receiving the baptism of desire. There is no physical case before me. I cannot see someone being saved in invincible ignorance. At the Newtonian level of matter there is no such person before me. I cannot meet someone saved in imperfect communion with the Church ( Lumen Gentium 8).I cannot meet someone in someplace where the true Church subsists outside the Catholic Church's visible boundaries and someone is saved there (LG 8).

So for me Lumen Gentium 8, 14 and 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II will always refer to a physically invisible case in 2022. This is a philosophical observation. I am referring to an objective reality. These are references to something that exists only in our mind.

They are physically invisible for people in general. This is common knowledge. Even if someone does not know theology or is even not a Catholic, these are physically invisible cases. This was common sense even for the saints who knew that the baptism of desire (BOD), baptism of blood (BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I), without the baptism of water, could only be a hypothetical case for us human beings. Objectively, St. Thomas Aquinas could not see or know the man in the forest, in invincible ignorance who was to be saved with the baptism of water, after God would send a preacher to him.

Sometimes, Catholics on social media would like me to present what I am saying in the theological form, of for example, St. Thomas Aquinas. But I am not presenting a theology. I am restricting myself to only philosoohy.There is one thing I am sure of- I cannot physically see a baptism of desire case in 2022.

I do not have an academic degree in theology but I know that I physically cannot see a baptism of desire case.

I have not written any books on this subject but of one thing I am sure, I have not seen a physically visible person, saved in invincible ignorance. If there was such a case it could only be known to God.

So then it is asked how can you say that there is no salvation outside the Church and cite Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Yes. This is what I do and here we enter the realm of theology.

It is when I say that there are no physically visible cases of BOD, BOB and I.I it is philosophy. But when I say that there are no physically visible exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), it is theology. I am returning to the old theology of EENS and the old philosophical interpretation of BOD, BOB and I.I.

When the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston with reference to Fr. Leonard Feeney says irrationally, that invisible cases of the BOD and I.I are visible exceptions for Feeneyite EENS, it is primarily a philosophical problem here. 

The 1949 Letter is saying that there are physically visible cases of the BOD, BOB and I.I and they are practical examples of salvation outside the Church and so are objective exceptions for the dogmatic interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Note: the philosophical position of the 1949 Letter is different from mine. For this Letter approved by Pope Pius XII, BOD, BOB and I.I are physically visible and for me they are invisible. It is only because they are visible that they can be objective exceptions for EENS and the Athanasius Creed which says all need to be members of the Catholic Church. Invisible people cannot be visible exceptions for the Syllabus of Errors when it supports the past ecclesiocentrism of the Catholic Church.

So the 1949 Letter has made a philosophical error, it has confused what is subjective as being objective, implicit as being explicit and postulated a New Theology which says outside the Catholic Church there is known salvation.

With the New Theology there is a New Ecumenism, New Evangelization, New Canon Law, New Ecclesiology etc.

This New Theology is based upon the philosophical observation which is wrong. It is irrational and deceptive. It has produced a political version of Vatican Council II.

I can interpret rationally the same Vatican Council II, which Pope Paul VI, interpreted with the visible- cases- are- invisible confusion.It will be in harmony with the exclusivist ecclesiology of the past. Since physically invisible cases of LG 8 etc do not contradict, for me, the dogma EENS as it was interpreted by the missionaries in the 16 th century.Common sense.

If there is a box of oranges and there is an apple in the center of the box then that apple there is an exceptions because it is different but also because it is there in that box. If it was not there it would not be an exception. When BOD, BOB and I.I are invisible how can they be objective examples of salvation outside the Church and exceptions for Feeneyite EENS ?

If there are four tall boys standing at a street corner and a short one joins them then he is an exception, since he is different but also because he is there at that corner.So how can LG 8, 14, 16 etc be exceptions for EENS, when there are no such cases in our human reality?

This is a philosophical problem in the Church.It is an error that has spread throughout the Church like the Arian heresy of past times.-Lionel Andrades