I affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) according to the Bible (John 3:5, Mark 16:16), Vatican Council II (LG 14, LG 16) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846 etc. This is my Catholic Faith. I interpret LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc as being invisible and hypothetical cases in 2023 and so they do not contradict LG 14 and AG 7 or the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and the Council of Florence (1442).Vatican Council II has a hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition for me.

 

I affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) according to the Bible (John 3:5, Mark 16:16), Vatican Council II (LG 14, LG 16) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846 etc. This is my Catholic Faith. I interpret LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc as being invisible and hypothetical cases in 2023 and so they do not contradict LG 14 and AG 7 or the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and the Council of Florence (1442).Vatican Council II has a hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition for me.

I affirm the past faith and morals. There is no liberalism for me since I interpret the Council rationally. I also do not repeat the mistake of the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston (LOHO).It confused invisible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance as being visible exceptions for Feeneyite EENS i.e. EENS according to the Church Councils (1215, 1442).So there is no New Theology of LOHO for me. There is no new ecclesiology with Vatican Council II.Since I interpret the Council, without the invisible-visible confusion. There is no new ecumenism for me, since there is nothing in the Council-text to contradict EENS according to the Church Councils. I do not have to choose between Feeneyite EENS and hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire (BOD). Invisible cases of BOD do not contradict the Council of Florence on EENS, with no exceptions. The popes and saints of the past, when they mentioned the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance did not contradict the strict interpretation of EENS, of the Church Councils ( Fourth Lateran Council etc).  -Lionel Andrades

OCTOBER 2, 2021

I affirm Church Teachings and Documents. Vatican Council II is an ally

 

I AFFIRM CHURCH TEACHINGS 

When Vatican Council II is interpreted with the Rational Premise the Council is an ally. We can affirm Tradition along with Vatican Council II.

I affirm all the teachings of the Catholic Church but I only interpret Church documents with the rational premise. So there is no rupture with the past Magisterium and Catholic Tradition.

LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949

I affirm the first part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which is not contradicted by the second half for me.Since the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance refer to hypothetical and theoretical cases only in 2021. They could not have been practical exceptions to Feenyite EENS in 1949. Pope Pius XII and the popes who followed made an objective mistake.The present popes continue with the mistake and expect all Catholics to follow them.So the interpretation of Vatican Council II by the College of Cardinals is also irrational and non Magisterial.

CATECHISM OF POPE PIUS X

I affirm the Catechism of Pope Pius X ( 24 Q, 29 Q) on other religions.It is not contradicted by that same Catechism mentioning those who are saved in invincible ignorance. Similarly I affirm Ad Gentes 7 ( all need faith and baptism for salvation) which is not contradicted by Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance).LG 16 is always a hypothetical case.Only God can know if someone is saved in invincible ignorance.LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 are always hypothetical.So they do not contradict the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church. 

Similarly the Vatican Council II, Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintigratio 3, is always hypothetical.So does not contradict the past ecumenism of return or the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation.

ATHANASIUS CREED

Similarly I affirm the Athanasius Creed which says all need Catholic faith for salvation.I  do not know of any practical exception in the present times.

DOGMA EENS

I affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and I accept hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance. I do not have to reject them.Since they can only be hypothetical, always.

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

I affirm the Catechism of the Catholic Church (846 Outside the Church No Savation) with Ad Gentes 7 saying all need faith and baptism. I do not know of any exception.There is no exception mentioned in the phrase , ' all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church'.The priority is membership in the Catholic Church, with 'faith and baptism' to avoid Hell ( for salvation).We do not separate Jesus from His Mystical Body the Catholic Church.The norm for salvation is faith and baptism.

Similarly I know that 'the Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water'(CCC 1257) and that there are no practical exceptions.Theoretically 'God is not limited to the Sacraments', and practically all need the baptism of water and Catholic faith,always, to avoid Hell.There are no practical exceptions for the norm for salvation.

NICENE CREED

In the Nicene Creed, we say 'one baptism for the forgiveness of sins'. This refers to one baptism, the baptism of water, which is physically visible. I cannot administer the baptism of desire and it is not known to us human beings.So there is one baptism and not three or more known baptisms.There are no known baptisms which exclude the baptism of water.There is no literal baptism of desire, as says, Bishop Athanasius Schneider in the recent interview with Dr. Taylor Marshall.

FOUR MARKS OF THE CHURCH

So the Four Marks of the Church( one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic) must include affirming all Church documents with the rational and not irrational premise.

APOSTLES CREED

In the Apostles Creed, we say "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church".The Holy Spirit guides the Catholic Church even today, to say that outside the Catholic Church there is no known salvation.This would be interpreting the Apostles Creed with the rational premise.Otherwise the Creed would be saying outside the Church there is known salvation.

VATICAN COUNCIL II IS DOGMATIC

Vatican Council II is dogmatic and supports traditional EENS, with LG 8, LG 16 etc not being practical exceptions in the present times.

For Pope Paul VI, Vatican Council was pastoral and not dogmatic, since he used the false premise to create a break with the dogma EENS, the Syllabus of Errors etc.If he had interpreted the Council with a rational premise then the Council would also be dogmatic in 1965.It would make Fr. John Courtney Murray sj, Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, Fr. Yves Congar op and Fr. Karl Rahner sj unable to theologicallysupport their liberalism.There would not be a New Theology.

CHURCH IS ECCLESIOCENTRIC WITH TRADITIONAL RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, MISSION

Since the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance are always hypothetical, theoretical and speculative only, they do not contradict the Church's traditional ecclesiocentrism. 

These are the teachings and documents of the Catholic Church which I affirm.  -Lionel Andrades

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/10/i-affirm-church-teachings-and-documents.html