OPEN LINE Monday- 9/26/16 - John Martignoni on Catholic apologetics. John Martignoni on Catholic apologetics Call - 1- 800-585-9396 or 205-271-2985 Join our other archives by going to our SOUND CLOUD - …More
OPEN LINE Monday- 9/26/16 - John Martignoni on Catholic apologetics.
John Martignoni on Catholic apologetics Call - 1- 800-585-9396 or 205-271-2985 Join our other archives by going to our SOUND CLOUD - soundcloud.com/ewtn-radio or our EWTN radio camera archive www.ewtn.com/radiocam TEXT US: text the letters 'ewtn' to 55000 - wait for responce then reply with first name and question
John Martignoni on Catholic apologetics Call - 1- 800-585-9396 or 205-271-2985 Join our other archives by going to our SOUND CLOUD - soundcloud.com/ewtn-radio or our EWTN radio camera archive www.ewtn.com/radiocam TEXT US: text the letters 'ewtn' to 55000 - wait for responce then reply with first name and question
Lionel L. Andrades
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Bishop Bernard Fellay contradicted by Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson, John Martignoni : Vatican Council II does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus
The same declaration (LG, 8) also recognizes the presence of “salvific elements” in non-Catholic Christian communities. The decree on ecumenism goes even further, adding that “the Spirit of Christ does not refrain from using these churches and …More
Bishop Bernard Fellay contradicted by Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson, John Martignoni : Vatican Council II does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus
The same declaration (LG, 8) also recognizes the presence of “salvific elements” in non-Catholic Christian communities. The decree on ecumenism goes even further, adding that “the Spirit of Christ does not refrain from using these churches and communities as means of salvation, which derive their efficacy from the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.” (UR, 3)
Such statements are irreconcilable with the dogma “No salvation outside of the Church,” which was reaffirmed by a Letter of the Holy Office on August 8, 1949.-Bishop Bernard Fellay, Letter to Friends and Benefactors (April 13,2014)
Does LG 8 and UR 3 refer to an an explicit exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? Is implicit desire and being saved in invincible ignorance an exception to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? -L.A
Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson says Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/archbishop-thom…
F
r.Joseph Pfieffer of the SSPX 'Resistance' has made the same factual error on line as Bishop Bernard Fellay
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/frjoseph-pfieff…
BERNARD FELLAY MADE A DOCTRINAL ERROR : CONTRADICTS CATECHISM OF POPE PIUS X
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/bishop-bernard-…
BISHOP FELLAY'S DOCTRINAL ERROR CONTRIBUTES TO THE TLM BEING TARGETED
h
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/bishop-fellays-…
SSPX PRIESTS CONTRADICT THE CATECHISM OF POPE PIUS X
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/sspx-priests-co…
Catechism of Pope Pius X and Catechism of the Catholic Church 1993 do not state there is known salvation outside the Church
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/catechism-of-po…
ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE, MICHAEL DAVIS MADE AN OBJECTIVE MISTAKE: TRADITIONALISTS ARE STILL REELING
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/archbishop-lefe…
SSPX PRIEST SAYS THERE IS NO KNOWN EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS : BISHOP AND DISTRICT SUPERIOR SAY THERE ARE
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/sspx-priest-say…
Doctrinal crisis within the SSPX and they don't know how to handle it
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/doctrinal-crisi…
NEW REVELATION IN THE CHURCH WITH VATICAN COUNCIL II FOR FATHER PIERPAOLO PETRUCCI : EXPLICIT-IMPLICIT MIX UP
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/new-revelation-…
___________________________________________________
CATHOLIC PRIESTS IN ROME AGREE WITH FR.LEONARD FEENEY: THERE IS NO BAPTISM OF DESIRE THAT WE CAN KNOW OF
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/catholic-priest…
How can zero cases of something be considered exceptions ?- John Martignoni
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/sspx-only-way-o…
IRRESPECTIVE IF THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE RESULTS IN JUSTIFICATION OR JUSTIFICATON AND SALVATION IT IS NOT AN EXPLICIT EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS.
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/irrespective-if…
JOHN MARTIGNONI SAYS VATICAN COUNCIL II IS IN AGREEMENT WITH EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS AND THE SYLLABUS: WHEN WILL THE SSPX AND THE VATICAN CURIA ACKNOWLEDGE IT?
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/john-martigioni…
Implicit intention, invincible ignorance and a good conscience (LG 16) in Vatican Council II do not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus –John Martignoni
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/implicit-intent…
________________________________________________
The same declaration (LG, 8) also recognizes the presence of “salvific elements” in non-Catholic Christian communities. The decree on ecumenism goes even further, adding that “the Spirit of Christ does not refrain from using these churches and communities as means of salvation, which derive their efficacy from the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.” (UR, 3)
Such statements are irreconcilable with the dogma “No salvation outside of the Church,” which was reaffirmed by a Letter of the Holy Office on August 8, 1949.-Bishop Bernard Fellay, Letter to Friends and Benefactors (April 13,2014)
Does LG 8 and UR 3 refer to an an explicit exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? Is implicit desire and being saved in invincible ignorance an exception to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? -L.A
Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson says Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/archbishop-thom…
F
r.Joseph Pfieffer of the SSPX 'Resistance' has made the same factual error on line as Bishop Bernard Fellay
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/frjoseph-pfieff…
BERNARD FELLAY MADE A DOCTRINAL ERROR : CONTRADICTS CATECHISM OF POPE PIUS X
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/bishop-bernard-…
BISHOP FELLAY'S DOCTRINAL ERROR CONTRIBUTES TO THE TLM BEING TARGETED
h
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/bishop-fellays-…
SSPX PRIESTS CONTRADICT THE CATECHISM OF POPE PIUS X
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/sspx-priests-co…
Catechism of Pope Pius X and Catechism of the Catholic Church 1993 do not state there is known salvation outside the Church
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/catechism-of-po…
ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE, MICHAEL DAVIS MADE AN OBJECTIVE MISTAKE: TRADITIONALISTS ARE STILL REELING
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/archbishop-lefe…
SSPX PRIEST SAYS THERE IS NO KNOWN EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS : BISHOP AND DISTRICT SUPERIOR SAY THERE ARE
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/sspx-priest-say…
Doctrinal crisis within the SSPX and they don't know how to handle it
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/doctrinal-crisi…
NEW REVELATION IN THE CHURCH WITH VATICAN COUNCIL II FOR FATHER PIERPAOLO PETRUCCI : EXPLICIT-IMPLICIT MIX UP
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/new-revelation-…
___________________________________________________
CATHOLIC PRIESTS IN ROME AGREE WITH FR.LEONARD FEENEY: THERE IS NO BAPTISM OF DESIRE THAT WE CAN KNOW OF
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/catholic-priest…
How can zero cases of something be considered exceptions ?- John Martignoni
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/sspx-only-way-o…
IRRESPECTIVE IF THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE RESULTS IN JUSTIFICATION OR JUSTIFICATON AND SALVATION IT IS NOT AN EXPLICIT EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS.
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/irrespective-if…
JOHN MARTIGNONI SAYS VATICAN COUNCIL II IS IN AGREEMENT WITH EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS AND THE SYLLABUS: WHEN WILL THE SSPX AND THE VATICAN CURIA ACKNOWLEDGE IT?
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/john-martigioni…
Implicit intention, invincible ignorance and a good conscience (LG 16) in Vatican Council II do not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus –John Martignoni
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/implicit-intent…
________________________________________________
Lionel L. Andrades
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
National Catholic Register does not comment as Jimmy Akins, Mark Shea,Edward Pentin and Pat Archbold assume the baptism of desire ( a zero case for John Martignoni) is an exception to the dogma
The National Catholic Register does not comment or discuss how John Martignoni , the apologist on EWTN, who is also a member of the Diocesan Staff of Bishop Robert J.Baker, in the Diocese of Birmingham in …More
National Catholic Register does not comment as Jimmy Akins, Mark Shea,Edward Pentin and Pat Archbold assume the baptism of desire ( a zero case for John Martignoni) is an exception to the dogma
The National Catholic Register does not comment or discuss how John Martignoni , the apologist on EWTN, who is also a member of the Diocesan Staff of Bishop Robert J.Baker, in the Diocese of Birmingham in Alabama, where the offices of EWTN and the NCR are situated, contradicts the article written on the EWTN website (by the late Fr.William Most).He also contradicts the interview of Cardinal Gerhard Muller by Edward Pentin, placed on the Vatican website.
John Martignoni says 'Zero cases of something are not exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus' .So how can there be anything in Vatican Council II which could be considered an exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma according to the popes, saints and Vatican Council II itself (AG 7).
NCR blogger Pat Archbold does not comment on this issue. Jimmy Akins and Mark Shea also assume that the baptism of desire ( a zero case for Martignoni) is an exception to the dogma. In other words it is a known, objective, seen in the flesh case, to be an exception.So for the NCR bloggers Lumen Gentium 16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance) would not be a zero case but someone personally known in 2015. So LG 16 contradicts the dogma for them.
I have heard Patrick Madrid on EWTN Radio a few years back also assume there are defacto, known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma on salvation.
In other words they have all changed the traditional interpretation of the dogma,accepted the irrational inference of the Marchetti 1949 letter,changed the Nicene Creed and now interpret Vatican Council II with an irrational premise and conclusion.This makes the Council a break with the past.
How can the National Catholic Register call itself Catholic?
Canonically the Staff Writers of the NCR cannot affirm the Nicene Creed and really mean something else.They cannot affirm a rational Vatican Council II and interpret it as a break with the past.
Legally, how can they say they are 'Catholic' and infer that Catholics must reject fundamental teachings of the Church. This is all reflected in the editorial policy of the NCR.
How can Dan Burke write about Spiritual Direction, the mystics, support pro-life issues and also interpret magisterial documents (including Vatican Council II) with an irrational proposition and conclusion.?
There has been no acknowledgment to the reports on this blog. It is as if they did not exist for them.
Fundamental questions are not being answered. Edward Pentin,Mark Shea, Jimmy Akins and others could at least acknowledge :-
1. We do not know of any exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus in 2015 so there are no exceptions to all needing the baptism of water in the Catholic Church this year.They cannot bump into a person in Alabama who is an exception, who will be saved without Catholic faith and the baptism of water.
2.Before 1949 there are no references in magisterial documents to the baptism of desire or being saved in invincible ignorance, as being known and visible to us, or as being an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So there is no magisteral precedent for accepting the Marchetti letter.It has also made a factual error. It assumes that the dead who are now in Heaven are living exceptions to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
John Martignoni contradicts the Marchetti letter.
-Lionel Andrades
Mark Shea ,EWTN,NCR are formally rejecting a defined dogma, the Nicene Creed and a rational Vatican Council II with their irrationality
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/mark-shea-ewtnn…
The National Catholic Register does not comment or discuss how John Martignoni , the apologist on EWTN, who is also a member of the Diocesan Staff of Bishop Robert J.Baker, in the Diocese of Birmingham in Alabama, where the offices of EWTN and the NCR are situated, contradicts the article written on the EWTN website (by the late Fr.William Most).He also contradicts the interview of Cardinal Gerhard Muller by Edward Pentin, placed on the Vatican website.
John Martignoni says 'Zero cases of something are not exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus' .So how can there be anything in Vatican Council II which could be considered an exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma according to the popes, saints and Vatican Council II itself (AG 7).
NCR blogger Pat Archbold does not comment on this issue. Jimmy Akins and Mark Shea also assume that the baptism of desire ( a zero case for Martignoni) is an exception to the dogma. In other words it is a known, objective, seen in the flesh case, to be an exception.So for the NCR bloggers Lumen Gentium 16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance) would not be a zero case but someone personally known in 2015. So LG 16 contradicts the dogma for them.
I have heard Patrick Madrid on EWTN Radio a few years back also assume there are defacto, known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma on salvation.
In other words they have all changed the traditional interpretation of the dogma,accepted the irrational inference of the Marchetti 1949 letter,changed the Nicene Creed and now interpret Vatican Council II with an irrational premise and conclusion.This makes the Council a break with the past.
How can the National Catholic Register call itself Catholic?
Canonically the Staff Writers of the NCR cannot affirm the Nicene Creed and really mean something else.They cannot affirm a rational Vatican Council II and interpret it as a break with the past.
Legally, how can they say they are 'Catholic' and infer that Catholics must reject fundamental teachings of the Church. This is all reflected in the editorial policy of the NCR.
How can Dan Burke write about Spiritual Direction, the mystics, support pro-life issues and also interpret magisterial documents (including Vatican Council II) with an irrational proposition and conclusion.?
There has been no acknowledgment to the reports on this blog. It is as if they did not exist for them.
Fundamental questions are not being answered. Edward Pentin,Mark Shea, Jimmy Akins and others could at least acknowledge :-
1. We do not know of any exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus in 2015 so there are no exceptions to all needing the baptism of water in the Catholic Church this year.They cannot bump into a person in Alabama who is an exception, who will be saved without Catholic faith and the baptism of water.
2.Before 1949 there are no references in magisterial documents to the baptism of desire or being saved in invincible ignorance, as being known and visible to us, or as being an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So there is no magisteral precedent for accepting the Marchetti letter.It has also made a factual error. It assumes that the dead who are now in Heaven are living exceptions to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
John Martignoni contradicts the Marchetti letter.
-Lionel Andrades
Mark Shea ,EWTN,NCR are formally rejecting a defined dogma, the Nicene Creed and a rational Vatican Council II with their irrationality
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/mark-shea-ewtnn…
2 more comments from Lionel L. Andrades
Lionel L. Andrades
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
John Martignoni is telling us something important about Vatican Council II
John Martignoni , the apologist on EWTN, who is also a member of the Diocesan Staff of Bishop Robert J.Baker, in the Diocese of Birmingham in Alabama, where the offices of EWTN and the NCR are situated, contradicts the article written on the EWTN website (by the late Fr.William Most). He also contradicts the interview of …More
John Martignoni is telling us something important about Vatican Council II
John Martignoni , the apologist on EWTN, who is also a member of the Diocesan Staff of Bishop Robert J.Baker, in the Diocese of Birmingham in Alabama, where the offices of EWTN and the NCR are situated, contradicts the article written on the EWTN website (by the late Fr.William Most). He also contradicts the interview of Cardinal Gerhard Muller by Edward Pentin, placed on the Vatican website.He is telling us something important about Vatican Council II.He does this when he says 'Zero cases of something are not exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus' .
Even Bishop Robert Baker would agree that zero cases of something are not exceptions. This is common knowledge.
It is also common knowledge that we cannot see the dead on earth.The bishop and John Martignoni would not be saying anything extraordinary.
So when Vatican Council II makes the following statement in Ad Gentes 7, it is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus as interpreted by Fr.Leonard Feeney, the Church Councils, popes and saints.It refers to zero cases.
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." 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
It does not contradict the following orthodox passage in Ad Gentes 7 which agrees with the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church.Those who are aware or are in inculpable ignorance do not contradict the necessity for all in 2015 ,to be formal members of the Catholic Church,with 'faith and baptism', to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.
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
There should not be confusion also with this line.
Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching..- Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II
We do not know of any one who will be damned in 2015 who did not convert, knowing about the the Church through its preaching.Neither do we know of someone who will be saved in incuplable ignorance and without the baptism of water and Catholic Faith. These lines refer to a possibility known only to God and this possibility could include receiving the baptism of water. However either way, with or without the baptism of water, this is a zero case for us.Being saved in inculpable ignorance or with implicit desire( baptism of desire) are zero cases for us.So they must not be considered exceptions.This was the objective mistake in the Cardinal Francesco Marchetti-Selvaggiani Letter of the Holy Office 1949.-Lionel Andrades
January 19, 2015
National Catholic Register does not comment as Jimmy Akins, Mark Shea,Edward Pentin and Pat Archbold assume the baptism of desire ( a zero case for John Martignoni) is an exception to the dogma
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/national-cathol…
John Martignoni , the apologist on EWTN, who is also a member of the Diocesan Staff of Bishop Robert J.Baker, in the Diocese of Birmingham in Alabama, where the offices of EWTN and the NCR are situated, contradicts the article written on the EWTN website (by the late Fr.William Most). He also contradicts the interview of Cardinal Gerhard Muller by Edward Pentin, placed on the Vatican website.He is telling us something important about Vatican Council II.He does this when he says 'Zero cases of something are not exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus' .
Even Bishop Robert Baker would agree that zero cases of something are not exceptions. This is common knowledge.
It is also common knowledge that we cannot see the dead on earth.The bishop and John Martignoni would not be saying anything extraordinary.
So when Vatican Council II makes the following statement in Ad Gentes 7, it is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus as interpreted by Fr.Leonard Feeney, the Church Councils, popes and saints.It refers to zero cases.
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." 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
It does not contradict the following orthodox passage in Ad Gentes 7 which agrees with the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church.Those who are aware or are in inculpable ignorance do not contradict the necessity for all in 2015 ,to be formal members of the Catholic Church,with 'faith and baptism', to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.
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
There should not be confusion also with this line.
Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching..- Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II
We do not know of any one who will be damned in 2015 who did not convert, knowing about the the Church through its preaching.Neither do we know of someone who will be saved in incuplable ignorance and without the baptism of water and Catholic Faith. These lines refer to a possibility known only to God and this possibility could include receiving the baptism of water. However either way, with or without the baptism of water, this is a zero case for us.Being saved in inculpable ignorance or with implicit desire( baptism of desire) are zero cases for us.So they must not be considered exceptions.This was the objective mistake in the Cardinal Francesco Marchetti-Selvaggiani Letter of the Holy Office 1949.-Lionel Andrades
January 19, 2015
National Catholic Register does not comment as Jimmy Akins, Mark Shea,Edward Pentin and Pat Archbold assume the baptism of desire ( a zero case for John Martignoni) is an exception to the dogma
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/national-cathol…
Lionel L. Andrades
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Bishop Robert J. Baker and Raymond Arroyo could clarify if Mother Angelica was correct on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus since there are no known exceptions in 2016
Bishop Robert J.Baker is the bishop the diocese of Birmingham in Alabama where EWTN is situated. John Martignoni is the Director of the Office of the New Evangelization and Stewardship in the diocese and is a well known Catholic …More
Bishop Robert J. Baker and Raymond Arroyo could clarify if Mother Angelica was correct on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus since there are no known exceptions in 2016
Bishop Robert J.Baker is the bishop the diocese of Birmingham in Alabama where EWTN is situated. John Martignoni is the Director of the Office of the New Evangelization and Stewardship in the diocese and is a well known Catholic apologist with a program on EWTN.
John Martignoni has said that 'Zero cases of something are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.' In other words we do not know of any explicit exception to all needing to enter the Church for salvation in 2016.This is something obvious. We cannot see any exceptions.
Even for Mother Angelica the founder of EWTN there were no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.She had posted a list on EWTN of the popes and saints affirming the dogma like the 16th century missionaries.It was not like Pope Benedict in his recent interview with Avvenire.
I have asked John Martignoni if there are any exceptions to EENS mentioned in Vatican Council II for him, since for me there are none. He will not answer.He said there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS but would not comment on Vatican Council II.
Neither will Bishop Baker or the directors and officials of his diocese offices put forward an answer.
They will not disagree or agree with John Martignoni and Bishop Thomas E. Gullickson who say there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS.Obviously there are no known exceptions!
For Raymond Arroyo and the speakers on EWTN situated in Alabama, the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Even for EWTN 's National Catholic Register correspondents there are known exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. For Mark Shea and Edward Pentin there are known exceptions.
MOTHER ANGELICA'S EENS
Why cannot we all go back to Mother Angelica's understanding of extra ecclesiam nulla salus,as interpreted by the 16th century missionaries ? John Martignoni, says there are no known exceptions to the dogma and Bishop Robert Baker does not know of any one today who does not need to be 'card carrying member of the Church', to avoid the fires of Hell. So why cannot we affirm EENS as did Mother Angelica?
DIOCESE CLARIFICATION
The diocese of Birmingham in Alabama and EWTN could officially affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no known exceptions in 2016.No one in the diocese knows of any exception.
EXCEPTIONS FOR THE POPE
Pope Benedict has said that 'the dogma has evolved' but we do not know of any exceptions, there is no known salvation outside the Church. Pope Benedict could confirm for EWTN or the diocese of Alabama, that he does not know of any one saved outside the Church, without 'faith and baptism'(AG 7, LG 14).He personally does not know of any one who would be an exception to the 16th century Catholic interpretation of the dogma.
BISHOPS MISTAKE
The liberal bishop who took over EWTN from Mother Angelica possibly told her that LG 16 for example was an exception to her understanding of EENS. In other words LG 16 referrred not to an invisible but a visible case. It would have to be somebody personally known, physically known to be an exception.Is there such a person for the present bishop in the diocese of EWTN ?
CONFIRMATION NEEDED
We now know that the liberal bishop who initially took over EWTN, which was being criticized by the National Catholic Reporter, assumed that there were known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.He made an objective mistake we now know.So could Bishop Robert J. Baker confirm this?
RAYMOND ARROYO
He could simply confirm that there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, there are no known cases in 2016 of persons saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. He could confirm that in 2016 we do not know of any person saved with the baptism of desire and blood or in invincible ignorance, without the baptism of water .
He could ask Raymond Arroyo to state his position on this issue.
FOR ME
1.I personally do not know of any such case of someone being saved without the baptism of water
2.No one in the past could have known of any such case. Physically they could not see people in Heaven saved without the baptism of desire etc.Neither could they say that any particular person on earth was saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
3.Those who refer to 'the desirethereof ' (Council of Trent) do not state that these cases were explicit and personally known. It was theologians who interpreted these cases as being explicit.So when a baptism of desire list is presented, for me,there is not a single reference which says that these cases are objective or relevant to EENS.The entire list is irrelevant to EENS. They are not exceptions.
4. No one who issued the Baltimore Catechism knew of a case of some one saved with 'only the desire' and without the baptism of water. So how could they speculate that 'the desire thereof' was a known baptism like the baptism of water? This was irrational. The baptism of water is physical. The baptism of desire is not.
So if any of the speakers on EWTN says there is salvation outside the Church it is speculation. This speculation cannot be posited as being an explicit exception to the dogma on salvation.
AGREE WITH ME
Bishop Baker, Raymond Arroyo and the EWTN speakers and apologists could say for example the following.
1. There are no known cases of someone saved outside the Church past or present and so there are no known exceptions to the dogma as it was known in the 16 th century. This is a rational option.
2.They could say that LG 16,LG 8, NA 2, UR 3 etc refer to invisible and not visible cases. So there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict EENS as it was known in the past.
3.The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made an objective mistake when it assumed that hypothetical cases were objectively known.There are no known cases of the baptism of desire or blood or being saved in invincible ignorance without the baptism of water in 2016.
INVISIBLE OR VISIBLE
As I mentioned in a comment on a post on The Catholic World Report, for me Lumen Gentium 16 refers to an invisible case and so it does not contradict EENS. When there are no exceptions to EENS, the theology is once again traditional and rational.Is it the same for Bishop Robert J. Baker ?
To change the dogma EENS is heresy. To reject it is heresy.To interpret Vatican Council II with an irrationality to produce a non traditional result, is heresy. It is not affirming Vatican Council II in line with the dogma EENS.It is changing the dogma EENS, the Nicene Creed and Vatican Council II with an irrational premise ( physically seeing people saved in Heaven without the baptism of water) and a non traditional inference ( these explicit cases in Heaven or earth are known exceptions to EENS).This is being done on EWTN and in the religious and catechetical departments of the EWTN diocese.Could we have a clarification ?.
-Lionel Andrades
March 30, 2016
The local liberal bishop took over EWTN and projected being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) as an exception to Mother Angelica's understanding of the dogma on salvation
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/the-local-liber…
Bishop Robert J.Baker is the bishop the diocese of Birmingham in Alabama where EWTN is situated. John Martignoni is the Director of the Office of the New Evangelization and Stewardship in the diocese and is a well known Catholic apologist with a program on EWTN.
John Martignoni has said that 'Zero cases of something are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.' In other words we do not know of any explicit exception to all needing to enter the Church for salvation in 2016.This is something obvious. We cannot see any exceptions.
Even for Mother Angelica the founder of EWTN there were no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.She had posted a list on EWTN of the popes and saints affirming the dogma like the 16th century missionaries.It was not like Pope Benedict in his recent interview with Avvenire.
I have asked John Martignoni if there are any exceptions to EENS mentioned in Vatican Council II for him, since for me there are none. He will not answer.He said there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS but would not comment on Vatican Council II.
Neither will Bishop Baker or the directors and officials of his diocese offices put forward an answer.
They will not disagree or agree with John Martignoni and Bishop Thomas E. Gullickson who say there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS.Obviously there are no known exceptions!
For Raymond Arroyo and the speakers on EWTN situated in Alabama, the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Even for EWTN 's National Catholic Register correspondents there are known exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. For Mark Shea and Edward Pentin there are known exceptions.
MOTHER ANGELICA'S EENS
Why cannot we all go back to Mother Angelica's understanding of extra ecclesiam nulla salus,as interpreted by the 16th century missionaries ? John Martignoni, says there are no known exceptions to the dogma and Bishop Robert Baker does not know of any one today who does not need to be 'card carrying member of the Church', to avoid the fires of Hell. So why cannot we affirm EENS as did Mother Angelica?
DIOCESE CLARIFICATION
The diocese of Birmingham in Alabama and EWTN could officially affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no known exceptions in 2016.No one in the diocese knows of any exception.
EXCEPTIONS FOR THE POPE
Pope Benedict has said that 'the dogma has evolved' but we do not know of any exceptions, there is no known salvation outside the Church. Pope Benedict could confirm for EWTN or the diocese of Alabama, that he does not know of any one saved outside the Church, without 'faith and baptism'(AG 7, LG 14).He personally does not know of any one who would be an exception to the 16th century Catholic interpretation of the dogma.
BISHOPS MISTAKE
The liberal bishop who took over EWTN from Mother Angelica possibly told her that LG 16 for example was an exception to her understanding of EENS. In other words LG 16 referrred not to an invisible but a visible case. It would have to be somebody personally known, physically known to be an exception.Is there such a person for the present bishop in the diocese of EWTN ?
CONFIRMATION NEEDED
We now know that the liberal bishop who initially took over EWTN, which was being criticized by the National Catholic Reporter, assumed that there were known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.He made an objective mistake we now know.So could Bishop Robert J. Baker confirm this?
RAYMOND ARROYO
He could simply confirm that there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, there are no known cases in 2016 of persons saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. He could confirm that in 2016 we do not know of any person saved with the baptism of desire and blood or in invincible ignorance, without the baptism of water .
He could ask Raymond Arroyo to state his position on this issue.
FOR ME
1.I personally do not know of any such case of someone being saved without the baptism of water
2.No one in the past could have known of any such case. Physically they could not see people in Heaven saved without the baptism of desire etc.Neither could they say that any particular person on earth was saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
3.Those who refer to 'the desirethereof ' (Council of Trent) do not state that these cases were explicit and personally known. It was theologians who interpreted these cases as being explicit.So when a baptism of desire list is presented, for me,there is not a single reference which says that these cases are objective or relevant to EENS.The entire list is irrelevant to EENS. They are not exceptions.
4. No one who issued the Baltimore Catechism knew of a case of some one saved with 'only the desire' and without the baptism of water. So how could they speculate that 'the desire thereof' was a known baptism like the baptism of water? This was irrational. The baptism of water is physical. The baptism of desire is not.
So if any of the speakers on EWTN says there is salvation outside the Church it is speculation. This speculation cannot be posited as being an explicit exception to the dogma on salvation.
AGREE WITH ME
Bishop Baker, Raymond Arroyo and the EWTN speakers and apologists could say for example the following.
1. There are no known cases of someone saved outside the Church past or present and so there are no known exceptions to the dogma as it was known in the 16 th century. This is a rational option.
2.They could say that LG 16,LG 8, NA 2, UR 3 etc refer to invisible and not visible cases. So there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict EENS as it was known in the past.
3.The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made an objective mistake when it assumed that hypothetical cases were objectively known.There are no known cases of the baptism of desire or blood or being saved in invincible ignorance without the baptism of water in 2016.
INVISIBLE OR VISIBLE
As I mentioned in a comment on a post on The Catholic World Report, for me Lumen Gentium 16 refers to an invisible case and so it does not contradict EENS. When there are no exceptions to EENS, the theology is once again traditional and rational.Is it the same for Bishop Robert J. Baker ?
To change the dogma EENS is heresy. To reject it is heresy.To interpret Vatican Council II with an irrationality to produce a non traditional result, is heresy. It is not affirming Vatican Council II in line with the dogma EENS.It is changing the dogma EENS, the Nicene Creed and Vatican Council II with an irrational premise ( physically seeing people saved in Heaven without the baptism of water) and a non traditional inference ( these explicit cases in Heaven or earth are known exceptions to EENS).This is being done on EWTN and in the religious and catechetical departments of the EWTN diocese.Could we have a clarification ?.
-Lionel Andrades
March 30, 2016
The local liberal bishop took over EWTN and projected being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) as an exception to Mother Angelica's understanding of the dogma on salvation
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/the-local-liber…