Peter
and Michael Dimond have produced another
video in which they do not interpret LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc,
in Vatican Council II, rationally.So their interpretation of the Council
contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam
nulla salus(EENS).It is the same with the SSPX and CMRI.
They negate the dogma EENS according to the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and the Council of Florence (1442).There were no exceptions mentioned in the 12th to 16 century. When the saints mentioned the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance it was always to a hypothetical case. This is something obvious. They did not have to explain it.
So when I interpret Vatican Council II rationally, there are no exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II for the dogma EENS. Peter and Michael Dimond do not do this. If they interpreted LG 8,14 and 16 rationally there would be nothing in Lumen Gentium to contradict the MHFM interpretation of EENS.
I have mentioned this so many times.They interpret Vatican Councl II irrationally like the main line Church which they refer to as 'the Vatican Council II sect'.Peter Dimond often uses the phrase 'as we have covered before' . I could say the same- that, I have said all this before.
If they choose to interpret Vatican Council II rationally then they would have to admit that they were wrong all these years.They were irrational all these years like the SSPX and CMRI.
They are not willing to discuss this subject and did not respond on Twitter.
I have only one question : do LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 refer to hypothetical and theoretical cases only in 1965- 2023 or are they references to objective cases, known and visible non Catholics saved outside the Catholic Church ?
Peter does not note that when Bishop Donald Sanborn says that non Catholics in other religions can be saved he refers to a hypothetical case.
If they are saved because of some reason and not because of their religion, it still is a hypothetical case. It exists only in the mind.
If they are saved in general in their religion it still is a hypothetical case.
If they are not saved in general in their religion it stil is a hypothetical case.
A hypothetical and speculative case cannot be an objective exception for the dogma EENS.
The confusion between what is explicit and implicit, objective and subjective was there in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office (LOHO) to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney.
Pope Pius XII wanted Fr. Leonard Feeney to say that invisible cases were objective exceptions for the Church Councils of 1215 and 1442.
If someone is saved in another religion it is a theoretical possibility only. It is hypothetical.
In the same way if someone refers to people in another religion, over the last 60 years, not being saved at all, it still is a possibility. Either way it is not relevant to the dogma EENS.It exists only in the mind.
For example, Ralph Martin, a professor of theology at the Sacred Heart Major Seminary, Detroit, USA, says people can be saved in another religion, it is a possibility. O.K.He could also say that people were not saved in other religions over the last 2000 years- this is a possibility- when you consider the Catholic dogma EENS. Either way it is hypothetical.It does not contradict EENS.It is not relevant to EENS. It was LOHO which wrongly made it relevant. The popes from Pius XII have not corrected this mistake in the LOHO which was placed in the Denzinger and referenced in Vatican Council II.
When someone receives the baptism of water it is practical. It is explicit. It is objective.It is not hypothetical. We cannot give someone the baptism of desire. We cannot verify being saved in invincible ignorance, or good will ( GS 22), elements of sanctification and truth in other religions (LG 8) etc. They are not objective.
The moment someone says that there are exceptions for EENS in the present times, he or she implies, that invisible people in Heaven are visible on earth.
It is upon this irratianality that we have the New Theology.
The New Theology is used to criticize 'Feeneyism' which does not choose the false premise to interpret the baptism of desire (BOD), baptism of blood (BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I).
To be a Feeneyite is to return to the old theology and reject Vatican Council II ( irrational).
Trent Horn and Michael Lofton confuse theoretical possibilities as being known non Catholics in particular cases, over the last 100 years, who are saved outside the Church. This is irrational. How can they be known to us ? Who saw St. Emerentiana in Heaven without the baptism of water?
How do we know if the Good Thief on the cross was not baptised with water?
Even if he was not- and went to Abraham's Bosom like the others after the Resurrection- we do not know of any such case in real life in the present times. There is no known Dismas in 2023.
If a 10 year old Jewish girl is saved or not saved, how would Bradley Eli know?
We know it is, and has been, a Catholic dogma that outside the Church there is no salvation. Physically, we cannot know of any exception. There are none in real life, to contradict our Faith.EENS is supported by Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) with BOD, BOB and I.I not being exceptins. EENS is supported by the Catechism of the Catholic Church (845,846) with CCC 847-848 (invincible ignorance) not being exceptions.-Lionel Andrades
APRIL 10, 2023
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment