A few years back I criticised a video by Robert Sungenis on outside the Church there is no salvation in which he said that being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are exceptions to the dogma. Robert then wrote a clarification saying that what I said is not the teaching of the Church.The Church accepts this category of people as exceptions to this dogma. He asked me to post his view on my blog and I did so.
His message like many other good Catholics is : either the magisterium is correct or you are. The entire Church cannot be wrong.
'You should have a little humility,' said an SSPX priest to me in Rome. 'Every one cannot be wrong.' A sedevacantist also criticised me for going against the general teachings of the Catholic Church.
This is exactly the point I am trying to make. A mistake was made in 1949 and every one in the Church accepted it since the magisterium cannot be wrong.Here is the error.Here are the three points. This is the missing link missed out by so many .
1.Someone in the past is an exception to the dogma on March 19.
2.Someone living will be an exception to the dogma today since he will be saved without faith and baptism.As if we can know!
3.Someone in Heaven is an exception to the dogma on earth.As if we can see people in Heaven.
For the SSPX Pope Pius XII was a good pope and so he could not have made a mistake. For them it was Fr.Leonard Feeney who was wrong.
O.K then how can being saved in invincible ignorance and implicit desire be exceptions to the interpretation of Fr.Feeney, when you consider the above three points?
Often I am told that St.Emerentiana went to Heaven without the baptism of water ( as if we can know). Fine, say she did go to Heaven without the baptism of water, how can something which happened centuries back be an exception to the dogma today? So also with the Good Thief on the Cross.
In Vatican Council II there are so many references to non Catholics being saved, or there being salvation with implicit desire or in invincible ignorance. Then it is implied that these cases are examples of salvation without the baptism of water. Then it is implied that these cases are exceptions to the strict interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney!
How could they been an exception when you consider the three points above.
Fr.Robert Barron in Catholicsm refers to a non Catholic being saved with the 'seeds of the Word'(AG 11). Apply the three points.
1.Someone in the past is an exception to the dogma on March 19 since he was saved with 'seeds of the Word'. A hypothetical case is a defacto exception to the dogma today!
2.Someone living today will be an exception to the dogma since he will be saved without faith and baptism and with the 'seeds of the Word'.As if we can know!
3.Someone in Heaven saved with the 'seeds of the Word' is an exception to the dogma on earth today.As if we can see people in Heaven who can also be seen on earth. The dead man walking!
Bishop Fellay ,the SSPX Superior Generals and theologians say that UR 3,NA 2 are exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma.Is this real?
So if the magisterium, the popes and cardinals say that there are exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma they conflict with the three points mentioned above.
Even a non Catholic when he understands this would say that they have made a mistake.They made a mistake in the Boston Case.The non Catholic would know that someone in the past or in Heaven cannot be an exception today to all needing to formally convert into the Church. Also we cannot tell when someone today is going to be saved in future without faith and baptism.
This was the error made by Fr.Jonathan Morris when he said that every one need not enter the Catholic Church for salvation.The error was picked up by Michael Voris. Fr.Jonathan was implying that he knew of non Catholics who will be saved without being formal members of the Church. Who are they, Michael Voris asked him on Church Militant TV.No response from Fr.Jonathan.
Archbishop Augustine Di Noia in an interview with Edward Pentin for the National Catholic Register said with reference to extra ecclesiam nulla salus that not everyone needs to enter the Church since he knew of some good Protestants who would be exceptions.This is the magisterium!
This is the irrational reasoning also of Bishop Richard Williamson.
It is with this reasoning that Vatican Council II emerges ambiguous instead of traditional for Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Robert Sungenis and Michael Voris.It is also a break with the dogma for the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney in the USA recognised by the Church.
The liberals like Cardinal Kaspar are interpreting Vatican Council II with this irrational reasoning.So the Council is a break with the strict interpretation of the dogma and they are glad. The traditionalists are not aware of this irrational reasoning.They also use it. Since,'how can the magisterium make a mistake?'