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
John MartignonipaulasusanpaulasusanJohn MartignoniJohn MartignonipaulasusanBasically by saying Catholics have the truth, then you are saying Protestants aren't or couldn't be saved....
John MartignoniJohn MartignonipaulasusanJohn Martignoni
Christie 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
____________________________________
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
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
________________________
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
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
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
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
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/03/doctrinal-crisis-within-sspx-and-they.html#links
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
How can zero cases of something be considered exceptions ?- John Martignoni http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/sspx-only-way-out-now.html#links
________________________________________________
The Holy Spirit can not teach the Church to interpret Vatican Council II using an irrational premise http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/05/the-holy-spirit-can-not-teach-church-to.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 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
____________________________________
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment