Nobody - absolutely nobody anywhere on the theological spectrum! - agrees with your strange approach to extra Ecclesiam.
May God nevertheless bless you richly at Christmas
Lionel:
Basically all I am saying is that there are no physically visible cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I), since if they existed they would be in Heaven. Upon this reality I go back to the old theology.
Fr. Stefano Visintin osb, scientist-theologian and present Rector at the University of St. Anselm, Rome agrees with me.For him too there are no cases of BOD, BOB and I.I and so they cannot be objective examples of salvation outside the Church nor exceptions to EENS.
Similarly Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson, the Apostolic Nuncio to Switzerland and Liechtenstein and the U.S apologist John Martignoni agree with me and so do many priests in Rome.
Since the ecclesiastics at the Vatican and Catholics at large accept the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO) their premise,inference and conclusion is different from mine.LOHO assumes invisible cases of the BOD, BOB and I.I are physically visible exceptions to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
So Redemptoris Missio,Dominus Iesus, the Catechism(1994) and the two papers of the International Theological Commission were written with the LOHO error.
This error in reasoning is also there in the text of Vatican Council II(AG 7, LG 14).It mentions BOD, BOB and I.I with reference to EENS, implying that there are known exceptions to EENS and all needing faith and baptism for salvation.
LOHO was referenced in the Catechism(1994) by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and inserted in the Denzinger by his German friend Fr. Karl Rahner sj.
So this is how there is a difference between me and everyone else.
I have studied theology for about three years as a day student and have university credit points. I disagreed with the professors on salvation, ecclesiology etc.
I have also completed semesters in philosophy and passed examinations while my priest-professors in Rome would philosophically interpret BOD, BOB and I.I as referring to known and visible non Catholics on earth- and they would consider this normal.
I have also attended philosophical, theological and Latin classes at two seminaries in Rome, along with other seminarians, who were obliged to say they generally could see people in Heaven saved outside the Church.
I have not come to this issue through any of the St.Benedict Centers, the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney, whom I admire, even though we differ on Vatican Council II
Let me repeat : basically I am saying is that there are no physically visible cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I), since if they existed they would be in Heaven and even the liberals concede I am correct here. So for me there are also no exceptions to EENS mentioned in Vatican Council II.LG 8, LG 16 etc are only hypothetical. The Council is as Feeneyite for me as is St.Thomas Aquinas, St.Augustine and numerous saints and popes.-Lionel Andrades
Reiterate
JULY 5, 2018
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/07/reiterate.html
JULY 5, 2018
These points should be clarified by the religious communities who are in communication with the CDF and Ecclesia Dei.Ask them if everyone can interpret Vatican Council II and EENS as does the blogger on Lionel's Blog.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/07/these-points-should-be-clarified-by.html
Questions for the traditionalists
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/08/questions-for-traditioinalists.html
Posts
