I accept Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church which I interpret rationally.

 

APRIL 3, 2023

I accept Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church which I interpret rationally. Based upon Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church I affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) of Pope Honorius III, at the time of St. Dominic Guzman and the founders of the Dominican Order of Preachers.

 

I accept Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church which I interpret rationally. Based upon Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church I affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) of Pope Honorius III, at the time of St. Dominic Guzman and the founders of the Dominican Order of Preachers.

VATICAN COUNCIL II HAS THE HERMENEUTIC OF CONTINUITY WITH THE FOURTH LATERAN COUNCIL OF POPE HONORIOUS III

For me Vatican Council II has a continuity with the past Magisterium over the centuries. It is not a rupture with the Athanasius Creed and the Catechism of Pope Pius X or the Catechism of Trent.

Even Pope Francis, the cardinals and bishops accept Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.However :

1) they must accept LG 8, 14 and 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc as being invisible cases and 

2) they must not accept the second part of the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney which made a mistake. It interpreted the baptism of desire (LG 14) and being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) as being physically visible examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church. So the second part contradicted the first part which affirm traditional EENS.

THE 1949 LOHO WAS NOT PLACED IN THE ACTA APOSTOLICA SEDIS SAYS EWTN

The 1949 LOHO was not placed in the Acta Apostolica Sedis according to a EWTN report. In 1949 the Letter of the Holy Office was issued by it was made public three years later by the Archdiocese of Boston. Fr. Leonard Feeney had appealed for the full text of the Letter to be made public.

THERE WERE NO VISIBLE CASES OF THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE SAID FR. LEONARD FEENEY

According to Fr. Leonard Feeney there were no visible cases of the baptism of desire (Bread of Life).Someone saved with the baptism of desire was always invisible for us human beings and known only to God. So there really is  no baptism of desire case for us. Over the centuries the baptism of desire was always accepted as being invisible and hypothetical and so was not projected as a practical exception for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Council of Florence 1442, etc). - Lionel Andrades 

 MARCH 16, 2023
EWTN admits that the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office(LOHO) was not published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis EWTN is dishonest and political
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/03/holy-office-to-archbishop-of-boston.html


Leonard Feeney on 'no salvation outside the Church'


https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/leonard-feeney-on-no-salvation-outside-the-church-12315