A Staff writer and columnist at the National Catholic Register he has no comments.No denial.
His editor probably convinced him not to again touch this subject.
So he will allow Catholics to interpret Vatican Council II as a break with extra ecclesiam nulla salus.LG 16 refers to visible cases for him, Dan Burke and Tom Wehner. They will not help Catholics see the error since there is a threat tho the newspaper.
The Catholic journalist is in contact with cardinals at the Vatican. He simply has to ask them 'How can the baptism of desire be an exception to the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney, when we do not know of any case of the baptism of desire in real life ?'
'How can invisible for us cases be exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church in 2015 for salvation, with the baptism of water?'
'So how can being saved in 'inculpable ignorance'(AG7) or with an 'implicit desire'(AG 7) be an exception, objectively in 2015, to all needing 'faith and baptism'(AG 7) ?'
'Did the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 first make this mistake and was it carried over into Vatican Council II(AG 7etc)?'
'So can the SSPX and the Franciscans of the Immaculte avoid this error and interpret Vatican Council II ? Would it be acceptable to the CDF/Ecclesia Dei?'
But this is a sensitive subject for many people and the Editors of the National Catholic Regtister would not like him to write about it.So he avoids this subject even though it is central to our understanding of Vatican Council II.
It is a subject he is also is not fully familiar with.Since when he did ask Cardinal Gerhard Muller and Archbishop Augustine Di Noia, in different interviews, about extra ecclesiam nulla salus, he could not see the error, in their response.1 They were using the visible-dead inference.They got away easily.
Pentin now in a sense is off the hook. He does not have to stay that he knows that the Holy Office 1949 made a mistake, the same wrong inference is being used by the political Left in the interpretation of Vatican Council and that it is irrational and heretical.
How can he say Vatican Council II is Feeneyite and expect the editors of the NCR to accept this ? He has a similar problem as Patrick Archbold.
So he does not ask the important questions on the dogma and Vatican Council II and keeps his job at the Register.-Lionel Andrades
June 5, 2013
Archbishop Gerhard Muller was using the false premise : here is the proof!
ARCHBISHOP GERHARD MULLER ASSUMES THAT THE DEAD WHO ARE SAVED ARE VISIBLE ON EARTH AND SO EVERY ONE DOES NOT NEED TO ENTER THE CHURCH:NCR interview
Padre Pio Prayer Groups, Neo Catechumenal Way, Charismatic Renewal, all the religious communities, Diocesan priests... the SSPX and Archbishop Gerhard Muller http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/01/padre-pio-prayer-groups-neo_28.html#links
Muller-Fellay Meeting: Cardinal Muller will not accept Vatican Council II without the irrational premise and he wants the SSPX, FFI to use the false premise with the Council and Catechism ?
Meeting needed between Ecclesia Dei/CDF, SSPX,CMRI and others: all agree that the baptism of desire is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/08/meeting-needed-between-ecclesia-deicdf.html#links
ITS TIME FOR ECCLESIA DEI TO BEGIN RECONCILIATION WITH HUTTON GIBSON, CMRI,MHFM AND OTHER SEDEVACATISTS: PRIMARY ISSUE IS EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
Vatican clarification needed that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are not explicit exceptions to the dogma and no magisterial text makes this claim.