Latest topics
» SSPX cannot accept Vatican Council II because of the restrictions placed by the Jewish Left
Tue Dec 12, 2017 8:36 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» 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

» Catholic theocracy- Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) and extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Feeneyite) essential
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:57 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» The Social Reign of Christ the King can be seen based on Cushingite or Feeneyite theology, Vatican Council II with the false premise or without it
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:52 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» When Card. Ladaria and Bp Fellay meet a non Catholic they know he or she is oriented to Hell because the Church lic Church inspired by the Holy Spirit teaches this
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:49 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» No denial from Cardinal Ladaria and Bishop Fellay : two interpretations of Vatican Council II and theirs is the irrational one
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:44 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Ask Cardinal Ladaria a few questions when you meet him
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:42 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Now it is the time for cardinals Kasper and Marx to reject Vatican Council II
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:37 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» No denial from Cardinal Ladaria, CDF : schism from the Left over Vatican Council II
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:35 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Schism over Vatican Council II ?
Sat Nov 25, 2017 9:30 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX recognises that Abp.Lefebvre's writings are obsolete : seminaries have to make the correction
Thu Nov 23, 2017 9:25 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Polish traditionalists handicapped : Archbishop Lefebvre made a mistake
Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:20 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney in the USA when they interpret Vatican Council II with the irrational premise deny the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:18 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Bishop Robert J.McManus and Brother Thomas Augustine MICM,Superior,St.Benedict Center,Still River,MA, interpret Vatican Council II with the 'possibilites are exceptions' error
Mon Nov 06, 2017 8:47 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX must be aware of the deception of Abp.Guido Pozzo and confront it
Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:57 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Two popes must ask all Catholics to affirm Vatican Council II (premise-free) as they do
Mon Oct 30, 2017 5:16 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary Still River Ma., could lose canomical status because of Feeneyism
Sat Oct 28, 2017 5:54 am by Lionel L. Andrades

»  Traditionalists oppose Pope Francis on morals but give him a pass on salvation
Fri Oct 27, 2017 10:06 am by Lionel L. Andrades


Church Militant unable to answer questions on extra ecclesiam nulla salus

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Church Militant unable to answer questions on extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Post  Lionel L. Andrades on Sun May 17, 2015 5:55 am

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

Lionel L. Andrades

Posts : 59
Reputation : 157
Join date : 2015-05-11

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum