This error would also be Patriarch Bartolomew's understanding of Vatican Council II, as he thinks Catholics accept it

QuoVadisPetre

Lionel, you’re plain wrong about BOD being an exception to EENS.

 

Lionel:
I am not saying it is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
1.I do not know of any any exception in 2014.
2.I do not know of any magisterial document before 1949 which says it is an exception.
3.I do not know of any magisterial document before 1949 which says that the baptism of desire cases are visible to us.
4.I accept the baptism of desire as a theoretical possibility. It is hypothethical for me and known only to God. So I do not reject it. For me these hypothetical cases will always be followed by the baptism of water, if God wants it.
________________________________________________

 

QuoVadisPetre

The problem is that you define your own Magisterium, in opposition to the Fathers, Popes, and Doctors of the Church.

Lionel:
I support the magisterium before 1949 which was traditional. I reject the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 as 1) contradicting the Magisterium before 1949 and also Vatican Council II (AG 7) and 2) which irrationally assumes that those who are saved with the baptism of desire are explicit exceptions to Tradition on salvation. This is a new doctrine and it is irrational.The magisterium contradicts itself here. This can be seen very clearly in CCC 1257.
_________________________________________________

QuoVadisPetre

 

Trent explicitly said in fact or in desire, and every theologian since the Council of Trent believed it so.

Lionel:
The Council of Trent mentioned the baptism of desire. This is fine.Trent did not say that these cases were visible to us or an explicit exception to the dogma.This was the mistake made by the American theologians in Boston in the 1940's.
__________________________________________

 

QuoVadisPetre

Only the late Fr. Feeney dared to supposedly “improve on the Fathers,” Popes, and theologians.
Lionel:
He affirmed the dogma according to the Church Councils which did not mention the baptism of desire as an exception. No Church document before 1949 says that the baptism of desire is visible to us or an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Fr.Leonard Feeney accepted the possibility of a catechumen having the baptism of desire and being justified .This theoretical case would be saved once God gave the grace of  the baptism of water.
So the St.Benedict Centers, the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney in the USA do not deny the baptism of desire. They assume that these hypothethical cases , would also have the baptism of water for salvation.
Their position is in agreement with the dogma on salvation and Vatican Council II (AG 7).
_______________________________________________________

 

QuoVadisPetre

And BOD isn’t theoretical. According to the 1917 CIC, catechumens are considered baptized if they die without baptism through no fault of their own.
Lionel:
Baptism of desire (BOD) is always theoretical for us! It can only be known and visible to God.
_________________________________________________

QuoVadisPetre

According to the 1917 CIC, catechumens are considered baptized if they die without baptism through no fault of their own.
Lionel:
True and this case is hypothetical. It is not of someone personally known to us.
_________________________________________________

 

Lionel.
So the SSPX here has mistaken hypothethical cases as being known in the present life.They have picked up the mistake of the Letter of the Holy Office.The error was made by Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops uncritically followed the error. See these links, would you agree with me ?
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_baptisms.htm

http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_errors_of_feeneyites.htm

_______________________________________

Lionel:
This error would also be Patriarch Bartolomew's understanding of Vatican Council II, as he thinks Catholics accept it.
If it is realized that LG 16 ( invincible ignorance) etc are hypothetical for us and so do not contradict the Syllabus of Errors and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Patriarch Bartolomew would discover that for Catholics, Vatican Council assumes that he is on the way to Hell. Since there would be nothing in the Council II to contradict Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441 which says 'schismatics' are oriented to 'the fires of Hell'.

It would also mean that there is no known salvation outside the Catholic Church. No one can be saved without 'faith and baptism'. This would mean that there are no known exceptions to the Catholic doctrine on the Social Reign of Jesus Christ over all political instituions.
There  would also be no known exception to traditional ecumenism and ecclesiology.

-Lionel Andrades
________________________________