I agree with the Church, magisterial documents interpreted without the Marchetti Inference, the irrational premise.I affirm the dogma which is not contradicted by LG 16,LG 8,NA 2, UR 3

You even contradict yourself and this is what happens when you use private interpretation and do not listen to he Church.

Lionel:

I agree with the Church, magisterial documents interpreted without the Marchetti Inference, the irrational premise.I affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which is not contradicted by LG 16,LG 8,NA 2, UR 3 etc. I affirm Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7) which says all need faith and baptism for salvation which is not contradicted by (AG 7,LG 14) which also says a person can be saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire.

AG 7 and LG 14 refer to all needing faith and baptism and also mentions those who are saved in invincible ignorance and implicit desire.

I accept being saved with invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. For me they are possibilities known only to God and will always be followed with the baptism of water.

 

I reject an interpretation of Vatican Council II by 'the Church' when it is inferred that LG 16 etc refer to known cases in the present times.Then it is wrongly concluded that  and there are explicit exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. This is irrational.This is a break with the magisterium before 1949 and so not part of the Deposit of the Faith.

 

So without the Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani Inference I accept Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Church in agreement with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors.

 

I accept CCC 1257 when it says the Church knows of no means to eternal salvation other than the baptism of water. I reject CCC 1257 when it also says God is not limited to the Sacraments. Since the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II (AG 7) tell us that God has chosen to limit salvation to the Sacraments in the Catholic Church.

On October 13, 2012 you posted on your own blog:
  Lionel said:
"Those who cannot say that we do not know any case of the baptism of desire or being saved in invincible ignorance have difficulty here.
Those who know that we do not know any exceptions, and that they are irrelevant to the literal interpretation of the dogma, know that this is not an issue.
The baptism of water is the ordinary means of salvation we all agree here.
If God chooses to save a person WITHOUT the Sacraments it would be known only to God. So it does not contradict the ordinary, normal way chosen by God for us to go to Heaven and avoid Hell."

Lionel:

If God chooses to save a person without the Sacraments it would be known only to God and so would not be an explicit exception to the dogma. This was where Marchetti went wrong.So if even if this is mentioned as an arguement, as it is often done, it is meaningless. It is irrelevant to the dogma.This was my point.Vatican Council II suggests this based on the Marchetti inference of there being known salvation outside the Catholic Church.

I personally believe that all who are in Heaven are there with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water. This is the teaching of the Church without the Marchetti inference.

**************

I along with the Church agree 100 % with your last sentence. You admit that God is not bound by his sacraments. Enough with this "exception" and "Known" nonsense. (I agree . There are no exceptions since there are no known exceptions) The Church has always taught and demands that all must be taught and all must receive baptism by water in order that they may gain salvation. Furthermore the Church teaches that She knows of NO other means other than Baptism of water. This is what we believe and must teach to all. There are no exceptions and of course no one is known who is living that is saved by Baptism of Blood or Baptism of Desire. I have now repeated this way too many times . ( I agree with you here. This is what I have been repeating so many times ) You are stuck in your own mindset and not following Church teaching.

Furthermore just yesterday you said simply that you agree with the words of Father Faber and here we go again today in your denial??? (Fr.Faber has not said that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma.His writings precede the 1949 Marchetti mistake).
Father Faber said: "We do not bind God further than he has been pleased to bind himself.(Yes! God has bound salvation to the Sacraments in the Catholic Church.This was the point he made when he mentioned exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church) We do not limit the far reaching excesses of His mercy" You Lionel said "agreed" and now one day later you deny this truth. (I agree with Fr.Faber)

-Lionel Andrades
I accept Vatican Council II and the strict interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church. For me this is what 'the Church ' teaches http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/i-accept-vatican-council-ii-and-strict.html