FR. CHAD RIPPERGER, JESSE ROMERO AND TERRY BARBER WOULD BE INTERPRETING VATICAN COUNCIL II, THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE AND THE CREEDS IRRATIONALLY
FR.CHAD RIPPERGER, JESSE ROMERO AND TERRY BARBER AFFIRM THE DOGMA EENS WHICH IS IN HARMONY WITH VATICAN COUNCIL II AND THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH - BUT WITH CONFUSIONHowever 15 hypothetical cases which he has mentioned could be confused as practical exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
It could also mean that he is interpreting Vatican Coiuncil II irrationally by confusing hypothetical cases of LG 14, 16 etc are being visible exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
This would indicate that he interprets the baptism of desire irrationally too. So his interpretation of the Creeds too would be with the irrational interpretation of the baptism of desire. This is the common mistake in the Church.
For me the Church Councils did not mention any exceptions and in real life, we humans cannot know of any, in particular for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), which he cited.
The following points he mentioned refer to hypothetical cases only. They refer to invisible cases in 2024 for us human beings. So they did not contradict the dogma EENS which he quoted.But why mention them? Was he confusing what is unkn own as being known. Did he think they were relevant and so everyone in general did not need to enter the Catholic Church to avoid Hell ?
1. He said it does not mean that a Protestant can be saved but they are not saved by virtue of their religion. (Lionel: If there was any such person in 2024 it would only be known to God. So why did the priest mention it ? Was he projecting this as an exception for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?)
2. He said Trent refers to the baptism of desire. (Lionel: The baptism of desire is always invisible for us human beings. The 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston made an objective error. It projected invisible in 1949 cases of the baptism of desire as being visible exceptions for Feeneyite EENS.)
3. There are those go give their life for Jesus even though they were not formally baptized.(Lionel: With good will we can hope that there are such cases but in 1949-2024 we do not know of any practical case. So ‘the baptism of blood’ is not an objective exception for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which the exorcist cited)
4. He mentioned that the Apocalypse refers to people of every nation and race will be saved. (Lionel: Ad Gentes 7 in Vatican Council II says all need faith and baptism for salvation. So Vatican Council II is saying that in Heaven there are only Catholics. This is also the message of the Athanasius Creed and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is also the teaching of the Catechism of Pope Pius X etc.)
5. If a Protestant happens to be saved how do you reconcile this with ‘no salvation outside the Church’? (Lionel: It is an invisible case for us. So it does not contradict the dogma EENS. Before 1949 they knew that there was no explicit case of St. Thomas Aquinas’ implicit baptism of desire. There are no literal cases of the baptism of desire said Bishop Athanasius Schneider in an interview with Dr. Taylor Marshall.)
6. If anyone is saved outside the Church they are saved by the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. (Lionel: Yes, theoretically speaking. In reality we do not know of any case in 2024. Everyone who is saved is saved through Jesus and the Church(CCC 846) and everyone needs to enter the Catholic Church formally for salvation(Ad Gentes 7)
7. If a Protestant is saved he is saved by mediation of the Catholic Church. (Lionel: Yes but this should not be projected against the dogma EENS. Since we cannot see or meet a Protestant saved outside the Church, since 1949)
8. If a Protestant is validly baptized they have Sanctifying Grace and are part of the mystical union of the Church,” even though visibly they might be outside the Church”. (Lionel: Yes, hypothetically. De facto there is no such known case for us. So tis is not an exception for the dogma EENS.).
9. If they formally do not reject the Catholic Church, which does not mean that they do not believe in it…, they can be saved.(Lionel: We have to make the distinction between what is implicit and explicit, unseen and seen, unknown or known. There are no such known cases. We cannot say that any particular Protestant or non Christian will go to Heaven even though visibly outside the Church)
10. It is possible for a Protestant to be saved because of invincible ignorance and if they have not committed a mortal sin. (Lionel: Theoretically, yes. But a possibility is not a formal exception for the dogma EENS. So LG 16 is not an exception for EENS. Vatican Council II no where contradicts EENS. This was not mentioned by Bishop Joseph Strickland in his Pastoral Letter on Vatican Council II. This point is still not covered by Virgin Most Pwerful Radio.).
11. God gives all people who have reached the age of reason sufficient grace to be saved, so even the Buddhist in Tibet who has never heard of the Catholic Church, is going to be given sufficient grace to be saved and they can be saved.(Lionel: A possibility is not a known exception. We cannot say that any particular Buddhist in Tibet or elsewhere will be saved without the ordinary means of salvation).
12. The minimum bar is that if some in ignorance lived according to the teachings of the Catholic Church, if they knew, they could be saved. They would want to be baptized. (Lionel: Yes theoretically, but this should not be mentioned with reference to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It is irrelevant. It is what the apologist John Martignoni would call ‘a zero case’.
13. He said that there is the ordinary and extraordinary means of salvation, in the sense God is still mediating through the Catholic Church. (Lionel: The extraordinary means of salvation can only be known to God. There is no extra ordinary salvation known to us humans. We cannot say that a St. Emerentiana is in Heaven without the baptism of desire. She is in Heaven and is declared a saint. But no one can confirm that she was there without the baptism of water.
Fr. Ripperger here indicates that he could be interpreting LG 14 and LG 16 irrationally.
14. So through the extraordinary means they can be saved “and there are cases in which they are saved”. (Lionel. Hopefully there are such cases in which they are saved through the extra ordinary way but they are unknown to people on earth in for example 1965-2024. So these unknown cases should not be posited as exceptions for the Church Councils, which defined EENS ( 1442 etc) and did not mention any exceptions.)
15. If a non Catholic or Protestant is saved they are saved in spite of their religion. (Lionel: O.K but this does not contradict the dogma EENS mentioned by the Council of Trent, the Baltimore Catechism etc. Possibilities known only to God are not formal exceptions for the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed etc.
So Fr.Chad Ripperger has affirmed the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and for me ,has not mentioned any practical exceptions.But does Vatican Council II have a continuity with the stric interpretation of the dogma EENS for him ? Is Vatican Council II aligned with the Athanasius Creed or is it a rupture ? -Lionel Andrades