There was no precedent for rejecting the Feeneyite version of the dogma.Not a single magisterial text before 1949 says there are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma

Lionel:
So you have not been able to cite any text from Quanto Conficiamur Moerore or the Council of Trent which says there are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
There is NO TEXT which says that salvation in Heaven is visible to us on earth to be exceptions to the centuries old interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

There is NO PRECEDENT for rejecting the Feeneyite version of the dogma.Not a single magisterial text before 1949 says there are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma. Not a single one!
So Marchetti's theory was just a theory.It was a personal inference. He did not know of a single exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma and there was no historical precedent, no magisterial document which supported him.

He gave us a new theory and this has become the new theology accepted by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in the Catechism and other magisterial documents during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II.

You have not been able to deny John Martignoni saying "Zero cases of something are not exceptions to the dogma".Many priests in Rome agree with Martignoni.It is common sense. It is something which is common knowledge.

Now even the Rome Vicariate, Ecclesia Dei , the SSPX and the FSSP do not deny it : there are no physically visible cases in the present times of persons saved outside the Church , saved without faith and baptism. So there are no explicit exceptions to the dogma in March-April 2015.

Marchetti did not have the support of the previous magisterial document and he did not know any exception and yet he rebelled against the traditional teaching on the dogma. This was heresy. He was also refuting the magisterium of the past. He was contradicting St.Maximillian Kolbe and thousands of saints.

The Cushingite heresy was then incorporated into Vatican Council II. Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 refer to being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire - as if it matters.
_____________________

wineinthewater
You are all over the place and your statements lack intellectual consistency. So I am going to sum up.
The magisterial teaching of the Church is clear, unambiguous and continuous.
Lionel:
For me the magisterial teaching of the Church documents (and not the contemporary magisterium i.e the persons in power) support the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( AG 7,LG 14, CCC 1257,845,846, Redemptoris Missio 55, Dominus Iesus 20 etc)
________________

wineinthe water:
There is no salvation outside the Church.
Lionel:
Yes and all non Catholics with no exception need to formally enter the Church to go to Heaven and avoid Hell. This is also magisterial.You cannot affirm this.
___________________

 

However, visible membership in the Church and water baptism are not necessary to be "inside the Church."
Lionel:
The Magisterium says it is necessary ( Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14), CCC 1257, 845,846, Redemptoris Missio 55, Dominus Iesus 20, Council of Trent,Syllabus of Errors, Catechism of Pope Pius X, Cantate Dominio Council of Florence 1441 etc).
__________________

 Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood incorporate a person into the Church even though that person be no a visible member.
Lionel:
We do not know of any such case.
For me the baptism of desire and blood are possibilities which I accept and they would always be followed with the baptism of water. This is the de fide teaching according to the dogma and other magisterial documents.
There is no dogma which says the baptism of desire must happen without the baptism of water.So I'll take a pass.
_______________________

 

This is the teaching of Trent,
Lionel:
This could be your political position. Since when I asked you to cite the text from the Council of Trent which says the baptism of desire refers to known cases, for it to be an exception to the dogma, you could not. You could not cite any text in which the Council of Trent refutes Cantate Domninio, Council of Florence 1441 on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Case closed!
______________________

 

this is the teaching of Pius XI, this is the teaching contained in the 1917 Code of Canon Law, this is the teaching of Vatican II. They are not exceptions to EENS. They are the fulfillment of it.
Lionel:
These are just words! Since you could not provide any proof in our discussion.No references.
______________________
 

This is the de fide dogma of the Church, not the false dogma you have described as such. While you can find Catholics, even Fathers of the Church, who have believed that visible membership in the Church and water baptism are necessary for salvation, that has *never* been a dogma of the Church. You will not be able to find it dogmatically defined *anywhere.*
Feeney's theology is heresy.
Lionel:
And so was St.Maximillian Kolbe and thousands of saints? Also the popes and the Church Councils ? All in heresy?

_______________________

 

He explicitly denied what the Church explicitly teaches.
Lionel: 

Words! You could not substantiate this in the earlier conversation.

______________________

 He denied that Baptism of Desire could lead to salvation when Councils and Popes have taught that it can.
Lionel:
Speculation. You could not cite a single case of a pope or Church Council to support your view.
_________________

 

 Your theological speculation about God bringing a person back to earth to get water baptism before finding salvation has absolutely no grounding in Holy Tradition.
Lionel:
The saints remind us that we do not have all the answers.We cannot say for example, that St.Emerentiana went to Heaven without the baptism of water. We don't know.While the Church through the Holy Spirit does know. This is told to us through the dogmas of the Church.
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus has been defined three times by Church Councils. It says all need Catholic faith and the baptism of water. It does not mention any exception.

___________________

 

Your hang up on "concrete cases today" is immaterial.
Lionel:
I am no theologian but of one thing, I am sure, I keep saying: 'We cannot see the dead on earth.'
So if there is no case there is no exception. If there is no known exception there is no exception.
______________________

 

We don't need to know who they are to know it is possible.
Lionel:
We cannot assume a possibility, a hypothethical case, is a defacto, objective exception to the dogma on April 3,2015. This is irrational thinking.
_______________________

 

And we do have concrete cases.
Lionel:
Not a single one.

_________________________

 

Jesus promised the Good Thief entrance to paradise, but he was never baptized with water.
Lionel:
Someone in the past cannot be an objective exception today. Your still clutching on to that straw.You know this is irrational thinking.
_______________________

 

St.Emerentiana was martyred before her baptism, yet is a canonized saint.
Lionel:
And you are inferring that someone who lived and died centuries back is an explicit exception today Good Friday, to all needing to convert into the Church, with 'faith and baptism'(AG 7). She is an example of salvation outside the Church, for April 3,2015.
For me every one on April 3 needs to be a formal member of the Church, as they say pejoratively, to be ' a card carrying member of the Church' -

and we would not and could not know of any modern day St.Emerentiana. Even if you say it was a possibility, it would not be known to us. This is elementary. This is elementary philosophy taught to Catholics seminarians.
______________________

 

Try as you might, no theological acrobatics can reconcile the theology of Feeney with Catholic dogma.
Lionel:
This is your liberal-left political postion.
I 'll still stay with the Magisterium ( according to magisterial documents), Tradition and Scripture.
______________________

 

In an irony, Feeney is a poster-child for the danger of the Protestant error.
Lionel:
Marchetti and Cushing were examples of the Protestant error, they came out with a new theory, a new theology, a new doctrine and here your trying to, as it's said,'shove it down my throat'.
______________________

 

He raised his own private opinion - in this case his private opinion about Tradition rather than a private opinion about scripture - above the teaching of the Church, the very heart of Protestantism, and disobedience such as Feeney's is almost always a natural consequence.
Lionel:
Opinions, political.
Magisterium, Scripture and Tradition, before and after Vatican Council II support Fr.Leonard Feeney and those four heroic Catholic professors of theology, who were expelled by pro-Left Boston College, for their traditional and rational Catholic beliefs. It seems, as if way back in 1949 too, the Boston Ecclesiastical hierarchy and the Jesuits ,were working for the future NWO and the one world religion.So they had an agenda given to them : 'get rid of the Catholic dogma on salvation'.

-Lionel Andrades

http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2015/03/dont-blame-vatican-ii.html#comment-1943178630