Latest topics
Church Militant unable to answer questions on extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus Forum (No Salvation Outside the Church Forum) :: Other topics :: Catholic News
Page 1 of 1
Church Militant unable to answer questions on extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Church Militant TV did a good job by discussing the Extra ecclesiam nulla salus issue and citing the dogma.Now they have to interpret Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents in line with the dogma and avoid liberal theology ( apparition theology) which originated with the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
However they are not responding to questions and comments on their website and Christine Niles' Twitter page.
They can affirm the first part of the Letter which is traditional and pro-Fr.Leonard Feeney.It supports the dogma. They can also re interpret the second part of the Letter to be in harmony with Tradition on this issue.
So regarding the second part of the Letter they can acknowledge that they accept being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.This does not have to be rejected.
However they must not link being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire to the dogma. Since these cases are not known to us in the present times. They cannot be known.
So being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are not explicit exceptions to the dogma since they are not explicit for us.They are known only to God . This is common sense.It is not theology.
The Council of Trent and Mystici Corporis only mention these cases. They do not state that these cases refer to persons known in the present times. So they cannot be exceptions to the dogma. They are irrelevant to the dogma.
So affirm the Letter of the Holy Office's support for the dogma and clarify that there are no known cases of persons in the present times who are exceptions.
The same with Vatican Council II. The Council supports the dogma in Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentes 14 . The references to being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire in AG 7 and LG 14 are not known exceptions to the orthodox passages in AG 7 and LG 14 which support the dogma.
Similarly the Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms the dogma in CCC 845 and in part, in CCC 1257 when it states that the baptism of water is necessary for salvation and that the Church knows of no other means to eternal beatitude. If there is someone saved without the baptism of water, we would not know of this case in 2015 . So this is a non issue with reference to the dogma.The orthodox passages in the Catechism affirm the dogma and there can be no exceptions mentioned to the in the Catechism, to the dogma. Hypothetical cases cannot be defacto, objective exceptions.Every one needs Catholic Faith and the baptism of water today, to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.
So those who want to speculate with liberal theology and discuss the pros and cons of salvation with the baptism of desire, with or without the baptism of water, are free to do so but they must be aware that this is irrelevant to the dogma.If they link their discussion with the dogma they imply that there are exceptions to the dogma, and that these apparitions are personally known to them. They would have to be personally known to them for them to be exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church for salvation.
So this is a win-win situation for those who value Tradition. You are affirming the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, according to Fr.Leonard Feeney, the Church Councils and saints and you are not denying being saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance.
We can avoid getting into the complexity of apparition theology on this subject by simply saying that we do not know of any one in the present times saved without 'faith and baptism'(AG 7,LG 14).
-Lionel Andrades
However they are not responding to questions and comments on their website and Christine Niles' Twitter page.
They can affirm the first part of the Letter which is traditional and pro-Fr.Leonard Feeney.It supports the dogma. They can also re interpret the second part of the Letter to be in harmony with Tradition on this issue.
So regarding the second part of the Letter they can acknowledge that they accept being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.This does not have to be rejected.
However they must not link being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire to the dogma. Since these cases are not known to us in the present times. They cannot be known.
So being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are not explicit exceptions to the dogma since they are not explicit for us.They are known only to God . This is common sense.It is not theology.
The Council of Trent and Mystici Corporis only mention these cases. They do not state that these cases refer to persons known in the present times. So they cannot be exceptions to the dogma. They are irrelevant to the dogma.
So affirm the Letter of the Holy Office's support for the dogma and clarify that there are no known cases of persons in the present times who are exceptions.
The same with Vatican Council II. The Council supports the dogma in Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentes 14 . The references to being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire in AG 7 and LG 14 are not known exceptions to the orthodox passages in AG 7 and LG 14 which support the dogma.
Similarly the Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms the dogma in CCC 845 and in part, in CCC 1257 when it states that the baptism of water is necessary for salvation and that the Church knows of no other means to eternal beatitude. If there is someone saved without the baptism of water, we would not know of this case in 2015 . So this is a non issue with reference to the dogma.The orthodox passages in the Catechism affirm the dogma and there can be no exceptions mentioned to the in the Catechism, to the dogma. Hypothetical cases cannot be defacto, objective exceptions.Every one needs Catholic Faith and the baptism of water today, to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.
So those who want to speculate with liberal theology and discuss the pros and cons of salvation with the baptism of desire, with or without the baptism of water, are free to do so but they must be aware that this is irrelevant to the dogma.If they link their discussion with the dogma they imply that there are exceptions to the dogma, and that these apparitions are personally known to them. They would have to be personally known to them for them to be exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church for salvation.
So this is a win-win situation for those who value Tradition. You are affirming the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, according to Fr.Leonard Feeney, the Church Councils and saints and you are not denying being saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance.
We can avoid getting into the complexity of apparition theology on this subject by simply saying that we do not know of any one in the present times saved without 'faith and baptism'(AG 7,LG 14).
-Lionel Andrades
Lionel L. Andrades- Posts : 60
Reputation : 158
Join date : 2015-05-11
Similar topics
» Did Pope Pius XII make a mistake ? : implicit desire, invincible ignorance have nothing to do with extra ecclesiam nulla salus
» Has the Church “changed” her teaching on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus?
» Fr. John O'Connor a heroic priest who believe Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and fought modernism in the Church
» Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus? There is!
» Dante and Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.
» Has the Church “changed” her teaching on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus?
» Fr. John O'Connor a heroic priest who believe Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and fought modernism in the Church
» Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus? There is!
» Dante and Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus Forum (No Salvation Outside the Church Forum) :: Other topics :: Catholic News
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Yesterday at 9:23 am by tornpage
» Defilement of the Temple
Tue Feb 06, 2024 7:44 am by tornpage
» Forum update
Sat Feb 03, 2024 8:24 am by tornpage
» Bishop Williamson's Recent Comments
Thu Feb 01, 2024 12:42 pm by MRyan
» The Mysterious 45 days of Daniel 12:11-12
Fri Jan 26, 2024 11:04 am by tornpage
» St. Bonaventure on the Necessity of Baptism
Tue Jan 23, 2024 7:06 pm by tornpage
» Isaiah 22:20-25
Fri Jan 19, 2024 10:44 am by tornpage
» Translation of Bellarmine's De Amissione Gratiae, Bk. VI
Fri Jan 19, 2024 10:04 am by tornpage
» Orestes Brownson Nails it on Baptism of Desire
Thu Jan 18, 2024 3:06 pm by MRyan
» Do Feeneyites still exist?
Wed Jan 17, 2024 8:02 am by Jehanne
» Sedevacantism and the Church's Indefectibility
Sat Jan 13, 2024 5:22 pm by tornpage
» Inallible safety?
Thu Jan 11, 2024 1:47 pm by MRyan
» Usury - Has the Church Erred?
Tue Jan 09, 2024 11:05 pm by tornpage
» Rethink "Feeneyism"?
Tue Jan 09, 2024 8:40 pm by MRyan
» SSPX cannot accept Vatican Council II because of the restrictions placed by the Jewish Left
Fri Jan 05, 2024 8:57 am by Jehanne
» Anyone still around?
Mon Jan 01, 2024 11:04 pm by Jehanne
» Angelqueen.org???
Tue Oct 16, 2018 8:38 am by Paul
» Vatican (CDF/Ecclesia Dei) has no objection if the SSPX and all religious communities affirm Vatican Council II (without the premise)
Sun Dec 10, 2017 8:29 am by Lionel L. Andrades
» Piazza Spagna - mission
Sun Dec 10, 2017 8:06 am by Lionel L. Andrades
» Fund,Catholic organisation needed to help Catholic priests in Italy like Fr. Alessandro Minutella
Sun Dec 10, 2017 7:52 am by Lionel L. Andrades