CATHOLIC CHURCH AFFIRMS STRICT INTERPRETATION OF THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS : Cardinal Vallini and Auxiliary bishops of Rome

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AFFIRMS THE STRICT INTERPRETATION OF THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS: Cardinal Vallini and the Auxiliary bishops of Rome would confirm. 

The Catholic Church affirms the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The dogma is also in line with Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7) which says 'all' need 'faith and baptism' for salvation.All. There are no exceptions.This is the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church before and after Vatican Council II.

 

Cardinal Agostino Vallini, Cardinal Vicar General in Rome and his Auxiliary bishops would today confirm that those who are saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire, referred to in Vatican Council II (LG 14, AG 7) as possibilities, are not physically visible and personally known to us .Obviously. So today March 30,2015 there are no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, defined by three Church Councils.Nor are there exceptions to Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II. None.We cannot meet someone in Rome who will be saved without 'faith and baptism'.

The Catholic Church's ecclesiology is still exclusivist.Since there cannot be exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II to the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The references  to invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire and LG 8,NA 2,UR 3 etc, all examples of persons saved but invisible on earth, are possibilities but not exceptions to the centuries old interpretation of the dogma, the Feeneyite version.

The cardinal and his auxiliary bishops would say the obvious i.e  salvation in Heaven is not visible, known, explicit in the present times. This is common knowledge.They would be saying the obvious known even to those who do not know theology. One does not have to be a Catholic to know that persons in Heaven are not visible on earth. Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani made an objective mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.He assumed there were physically visible exceptions.

The Catholic Church still teaches the Feeneyite version of extra ecclesiam nulla salus,for the discerning.Vatican Council II affirms the rigorist interpretation of the dogma- unless you assume some people in Heaven can be seen objectively on earth.

Cardinal Vallini and the Vicariate's view would also be supported by Archbishop Guido Pozzo at Ecclesia Dei.Now there would not be doctrinal differences with the SSPX, since Vatican Council II ( without the irrationality)  is pro-SSPX and pro- Tradition on other religions and ecumenism.

The Magisterium in 2012 did not doctrinally accept the SSPX General Chapter Statement which affirmed the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no exceptions.Since for the Magisterium there were physically visible exceptions in the present times.This was the irrational and non traditional position on doctrine of the CDF/Ecclesia Dei. 

Since Cardinal Vallini and the bishops of Rome cannot know of any exceptions to the dogma, Vatican Council II does not contradict the traditional interpretation on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. It does not contradict the traditional teaching on members of other religions needing to convert formally into the Catholic Church for salvation and that there can only be an ecumenism of return.

There are also no exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 which says all need to convert into the Church with 'faith and baptism'.

The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus has been the traditional basis for affirming the Catholic teaching on the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political systems.All need to be Catholic since in Heaven there are only Catholics.

So Bishop Bernard Fellay's differences on other religions, ecumenism and religious liberty no longer exist.

Doctrinally the SSPX and the Franciscans of the Immaculate can hold their traditional position on other religions and an ecumenism of return and also accept Vatican Council II (without the irrational premise). They can have it both ways. The irrational premise suggests that we humans can physically see exceptions to the dogmatic  teaching on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. Then the irrational inference is that since there are physically known cases of persons saved without the baptism of water on March 30, 2015, there is salvation outside the Church.So the irrational conclusion has been that Vatican Council II contradicts the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

That the Cardinal Vicar of Rome and his Auxiliary bishops cannot physically know any exceptions to the centuries-old interpretation of outside the Church there is no salvation, can be confirmed, by journalists, calling up the Rome Vicariate.They would be confirming common sense.

-Lionel Andrades

Journalist meets Cardinal Vince Nicols

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/journalist-meets-cardinal-vince-nicols.html

What I believe.
 

what premise ?

The irrational premise is "The dead are visible to us on earth".

what inference/ conclusion ?

The inference is since the dead are visible to us on earth, those who are saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance being explicit ( visible in the flesh) become  exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

So it is concluded that Vatican Council II (LG 16 etc) contradict the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So it is concluded that Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition, it has the hermeneutic of rupture.
 

what theology,

The post -1949 theology says every one needs to enter the Catholic Church except for those in invincible ignorance or with the baptism of desire.Since it assumes that defacto( in fact in the present times,explicitly) there are known exceptions to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston.So it is a theology which assumes there is salvation outside the Church even though we cannot know of any one saved without 'faith and baptism'.

what Tradition.

Pre- 1949 Catholic Tradition, on salvation ( soteriology) says there is exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. The three dogmas on extra ecclesiam nulla salus ,defined by three Church Councils, do not mention any exception. The text also does not mention the baptism of desire or being saved in invincible ignorance.I am referring to Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441 etc.

Also Mystici Corporis and the Council of Trent mention implicit desire etc but do not state that these cases are known to us, to be exceptions to the dogma.Neither do they state that there are exceptions to the dogma.

Yet with the false premise and inference is how the Council of Trent, the Catechism of Pope Pius X etc are interpreted. 

 

Do you accept the baptism of desire?

Yes. I believe a Catechuman who has an implicit desire for the baptism of water and dies before he receives it can be saved. Since God will provide the means for him to receive the baptism of water. It has been the experience of saints, including St. Francis Xavier that some people returned from the dead only to be baptised by them with the baptism of water. 

 

 Irrational premise, Irrational inference, Non traditional conclusion

The secular media uses an irrational premise which is "We can see the dead who are now in Heaven, we can physically see them in Heaven and on earth".
They then make an irrational inference which is " Since we can see people in Heaven saved without the baptism of water and formal entry into the Church, there is known salvation outside the Church and these cases are an explicit exception to the traditional interpretation of EENS."
Their conclusion is : Vatican Council II is a break with EENS.
 

Without the irrational premise, inference and conclusion there is no spirit of Vatican Council II in the interpretation of the documents

wineinthewater :

... the decline began before the Council was concluded and certainly before it was implemented.

Lionel:
In 1949 the Church threw away the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and its ecclesiology was no more exclusivist.
___________________
(I actually contend that the Council still has not been implemented.) It's hard to blame the Council for something that started before the Council was even finished.
Lionel:
The Council instead of correcting the Marchetti factual error implemented it.
_______________________
You can take the route that other commenters have suggested, that the Council weakened the Church and made her more vulnerable to the societal trends that were actually the cause.

Lionel:
The Council had changed Church teachings on mission, salvation etc because of the irrational inference.So with the irrational inference new doctrines were created.
___________________________
That is a stronger argument. The only problem is that those societal trends decimated the old mainline Protestant denominations that had been around for the whole experience. While the Church has managed to grow despite it's rate of loss, they have shrunk. And while heterodoxy and outright heresy may be a problem in the Church, even among her prelates, the Church's dogma has not abandoned historic Christianity as most of the old mainline Protestants have.
Lionel:
Correction. Church dogma has been abandoned. For example LG 16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance) interpreted assuming that we can see, know or meet people in Heaven saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water, has put aside the rigorist, centuries- old interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
We now have a new developed dogma in a Church with new doctrines and even a theology of religions....

 'that we can see, know or meet people in Heaven saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water' is the new irrational premise.
'that these persons are known exceptions to all needing faith and baptism; all needing to be formal members of the Church, in the present times for salvation' is the new irrational inference.
The false conclusion then is that Vatican Council II contradicts the traditional interpretation of EENS.We have the familiar hermeneutic of rupture.
________________________
If you are looking for something that more resembles historic Christianity within Protestantism, you have to look at the denominations that grew up in the modern era, that became dominant *after* the mid-century upheaval.
I think that the fact that the "Spirit of Vatican II" is so very different from the content of Vatican II is very indicative.
Lionel:
Without the irrational premise, inference and conclusion there is no 'spirit of Vatican Council II 'in the interpretation of the documents of Vatican Council II.
________________________________
The ills of the Church we see today track much more closely with the so-called Spirit of Vatican II than the Council itself. If the Council really abandoned the faith and is really to blame for decline, then why did the modernist heretics have to abandon the the actual content of the Council to promote their heresy? The Council gave the Church a response to the modern world based in Tradition.
Lionel.
Yes based on tradition after 1949. It was a break with Tradition before 1949.
________________________
Vatican II answered the modern world with the faith while so much of the rest of Christendom answered it with capitulation.
The problem is not that the Church embraced Vatican II. The problem is that the Church has not yet embraced Vatican II, preferring instead the "Spirit of Vatican II."

Lionel:
Yes it has not embraced Vatican Council II which affrms the rigorist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus and so the Council would be in accord with the Syllabus of Errors and the Catechism of Pope Pius X.
-Lionel Andrades
http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2015/03/dont-blame-vatican-ii.html#disqus_thread

Journalist meets Cardinal Vince Nicols

 

I think a journalist needs to meet Cardinal Vince Nicols, Archbishop of Westminister, England, ask him a simple question and then report on it.

"Cardinal Nicols I have a question on the Catholic Faith. It is true that a person can be saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire as mentioned in Vatican Council II and these cases are invisible for us and known only to God?

"Yes", the bishop would answer.

"Thank you. That's all" replies the journalist.

He then types the following report and posts it on the Internet.

___________________________

 

 

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AFFIRMS THE STRICT INTERPRETATION OF THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS:Vince Nicols confirms

The Catholic Church affirms the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The dogma is also in line with Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7) which says 'all'need 'faith and baptism' for salvation.All. There are no exceptions.This is the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church before and after Vatican Council II.

Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and 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.

 

 Today morning Cardinal Vince Nicols , Archbishop of Westminister confirmed that those who are saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire, referred to in Vatican Council II (LG 14, AG 7) as possibilities, are not physically visible and personally known to us .Obviously.

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."(17) 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. 

 

Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.-Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II.

 So today (Date: March 30,2015) there are no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, defined by three Church Councils.Nor are there exceptions to Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II. None.

The Catholic Church's ecclesiology is still exclusivist.Since there cannot be exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II to the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The references to invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire and LG 8,NA 2,UR 3 etc, all examples of persons saved but invisible on earth, are possibilities but not exceptions to the centuries old interpretation of the dogma, the Feeneyite version.

As the cardinal said, salvation in Heaven is not visible, known, explicit in the present times. This is common knowledge.He was saying the obvious. One does not have to be a Catholic to know this.

So the Catholic Church still teaches the Feeneyite version of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Vatican Council II affirms the rigorist interpretation of the dogma - unless you assume some people in Heaven can be seen objectively on earth.

________________________________

We need a journalist who understands theology and does not fall into the familiar secular propaganda, to come to this conclusion and then be able to write this report.

The last person to whom I addressed this question, which needs to be asked in Westminister, was Fr.Marco Hausmann FSSP, in Rome. Obviously he said that these cases are physically invisible for us.

The next time I meet Fr.Hausmann I will confirm it."Father, you still believe that those saved in invincible ignorance or  the baptism of desire are physically invisible for us ? ". He will again say "Yes".

That's all I need for a report!

So if you want a reconciliation of the Society of St.Pius X(SSPX) with the Vatican, put this same question to SSPX priests or officials of the CDF/Ecclesia Dei.It is at the centre of their  'doctrinal difficulties' ( and they don't know about it), recently mentioned by Archbishop Guido Pozzo.

Here is the format once again. You do not need my permission. Make any editorial changes you want.This is about the Catholic Faith. I do not have a copyright or monopoly over it.

___________________________

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AFFIRMS THE STRICT INTERPRETATION OF THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS.

The Catholic Church affirms the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The dogma is also in line with Vatican CouncilII (Ad Gentes 7) which says 'all'need 'faith and baptism' for salvation.All. There are no exceptions.This is the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church before and after Vatican Council II. Today morning, Fr.Pierpaolo Petrucci,SSPX/Archbishop Pozzo,Ecclesia Dei) ... confirmed that those who are saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire, referred to in Vatican Council II (LG 14, AG 7) as possibilities, are not physically visible and personally known to us .Obviously. So today (Date: March 30,2015) there are no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, defined by three Church Councils.Nor are there exceptions to Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II. None.

The Catholic Church's ecclesiology is still exclusivist.Since there cannot be exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II to the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The referencs to invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire and LG 8,NA 2,UR 3 etc, all examples of persons saved but invisible on earth, are possibilities but not exceptions to the centuries old interpretation of the dogma, the Feeneyite version.

As Fr.Pierpaolo Petrucci/Archbishop Pozzo said salvation in Heaven isnot visible, known, explicit in the present times. This is common knowledge.He was saying the obvious. One does not have to be a Catholic to know this.

So the Catholic Church still teaches the Feeneyite version of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Vatican Council II affirms the rigorist interpretation of the dogma- unless you assume some people in Heaven can be seen objectively on earth.

________________________________

 

-Lionel Andrades

Two standards on doctrine

Two standards on doctrine. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre accepted being saved in invincible ignorance as an explicit exception to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).So he approved Cardinal Francesco Marchetti's Letter of the Holy Office 1949.

However he rejected  invincible ignorance in Lumen Gentium 16 as an exception to the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS. So he opposed Vatican Council II .

It was yes with the Letter and no with Vatican Council II.

Similarly Fr.Pierpaolo Petrucci, the SSPX District Superior in Italy,in his talks, accepts being saved in invincible ignorance according to the Marchetti Letter but rejects the same thing in Vatican Council II.

He welcomes the exception to EENS in the Letter but rejects it in Vatican Council II.

Ironically, being saved in invincible ignorance is not an exception to the strict interpretation of the dogma, the Feeneyite version.This is the point every one is missing in their doctrinal talks and 'doctrinal difficulties'.

Bishop Fellay made the same doctrinal mistake in one of his Letters to Friends and Benefactors.Neither will he or the CDF/Ecclesia Dei announce the mistake.

-Lionel Andrades

 

 

Doctrinal difficulties exist within the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's position on Vatican Council II and Tradition http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/doctrinal-difficulties-exist-within.html