Monday, April 13, 2015

Gavin D'Costa presents an irrational view of the Catholic Faith to the Islamic Society of the University of Bristol and visiting Muslim professors

Gavin D'Costa, Catholic professor of theology at the University of Bristol, U.K  in response to the blog post which I e-mailed the University of Bristol 1 says he does not wish to dialogue on this issue and is not interested in 'any of your thoughts'.
My views? No.This is the official teaching of the Catholic Church which I follow. They are not my personal views.They are the teaching of the Magisterium according to Church documents.
Gavin D'Costa presents Muslims with a Vatican Council II, interpreted with an irrational premise and inference.This is not Catholic.
I have cited references for my Catholic beliefs 2. I also mentioned the irrationality of three points which Gavin D'Costa has not addressed.3. Even a non Catholic would realize that these three points are irrational and they should not be used by a professor to interpret any text.
Gavin D'Costa does not want to dialogue.Yet he will dialogue with liberals from other religions and present a false view of what the Catholic Church really teaches after Vatican Council II.
He presents a non traditional  view of the Catholic  Faith to the Islamic Society of the University of Bristol and visiting Muslims professors.This is done with an irrational premise.It  becomes the basis for his fantasy theology.This is unethical.
Instead of correcting the objective error he has written a book using this irrational reasoning.This is bad theology. It also becomes a lie when it is repeated after being informed.-Lionel Andrades
1
Muslim professors must know exactly what are the teachings of the Catholic Church about Islam and other religions, before and after Vatican Council II
 
2.
Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. -Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II.
 
the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church.-Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II.
1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them... The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit."- Catechism of the Catholic Church.



20. Above all else, it must be firmly believed that “the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door”. This doctrine must not be set against the universal salvific will of God (cf. 1 Tim 2:4); “it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation”.-Dominus Iesus, Pope John Paul II.
 
Dialogue should be conducted and implemented with the conviction that the Church is the ordinary means of salvation and that she alone possesses the fullness of the means of salvation-Redemptoris Missio 55.
  • “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” -Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.
  • “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”-(Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302
  • “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” -Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441 http://catholicism.org/category/outside-the-church-there-is-no-salvation
  • Dialogue should be conducted and implemented with the conviction that the Church is the ordinary means of salvation and that she alone possesses the fullness of the means of salvation - Redemptoris Missio 55.
     
    3.
    1. The physically dead for us, who are now saved in Heaven in invincible ignorance or with the baptism of desire are considered exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.They are not known or visible to us on April 10,2015.Yet salvation in Heaven is objectively seen on earth for D'costa and others, to postulate these cases as living exceptions to the dogma. Vatican Council II (LG 16,LG 8,UR 3, NA 2 etc ) cannot refer to exceptions since these cases would only be known to God.Yet they are exceptions for D'Costa and other Catholics. While a Muslim scholar would agree that there cannot be exceptions to the dogma for us humans, the university faculty does not accept this simple empirical observation.
    2. Similarly someone who allegedly died centuries back without the baptism of water would not be an explicit exception to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church today, April 10,2015.A hypothtical case cannot be a defacto exception today.A theoretical case of the past cannot be objectively seen today.So D'Costa cannot refer a case of the past as being a defacto case and an exception in the present times.Yet he does. This would be philosophical reasoning gone wrong.Yet this is being done at the University of Bristol's Department of Religion and Theology.
    3.Similarly the University of Bristol faculty would not personally know of someone today April 10, 2015 who would be saved in future, without faith and baptism and so would not need to be a formal member of the Catholic Church, to avoid Hell as the dogma teaches.They cannot posit someone living today as being an exception to Ad Gentes 7 ( all need faith and baptism) and Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441, which says extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Yet this irrationality is maintained by the Faculty in this department.
    As a Catholic lay man I reject the irrationality in these three points above promoted by the University of Bristol, even after they have been informed. I do not interpret Catholic Church ( magisterial) documents using this irrationality, which I refer to as Cushingism.
    _______________________________

    Will there be a schism over the Cushingism issue?


    What happens when most Catholics realize that Vatican Council II is Feeneyite. It does not contradict the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.What happens when they can read Vatican Council II without the Marchetti-Cushing irrational premise and inference?
    How will the Prefect of the Congregation of the Faith (CDF), Vatican respond when Catholics keep reporting, ' Vatican Council II is traditional on an ecumenism of return and the need for non Christians to enter the Church with faith and baptism?'
    Over time the Prefect of the CDF will realize that this is true.This is a rational interpretation of the Council . It makes sense.It is traditional.
    Then how will the pro-Mason ecclesiastics respond ? Would the Bishops Conferences in England and Germany reject Vatican Council II ?
    Will they demand that the Council be still interpreted with irrational Cushingism?
    What happens when cardinals interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise and inference? Will they be considered racists and  bigots. They will  be threatened  under  leftist laws?
    Recall the reaction over Bishop Williamson.He did not commit any moral or faith sin. Yet the bishop conferences in the USA, UK and Italy did not want him in the Catholic Church.Since even though he accepted that the Holocaust happened, he disputed the figure set by the Jewish Left, the pro-Satan people, who approve abortion, homosexuality, immodesty...
    So what happens when cardinals realize that Vatican Council II is Feeneyite and Catholics proclaim their Faith? Would there be tolerance from the Left ?
    Would they accept the SSPX with full canonical status ? Since then Vatican Council II would be traditional on other religions and ecumenism, while the rigorist interpretation of the dogma , would be the basis for proclaiming the Social Reign of Jesus Christ over all political laws.
    -Lionel Andrades

    Now the error has been identified. Over time people will realize that what Feeney believed in was de fide and it was Cushing and Marchetti who were in heresy

    Creative Minority Report
    waterinthewine:
    You have not responded to any points in my comment so far. So just focus on this one if you are going to respond at all:
    Lionel:
    Please check again. I have responded to all the points you have mentioned.
    ______________________
    wineinthewater:

    "There are two problems with this statement. First, I have never claimed that there are exceptions to EENS,
    Lionel:
    You are not saying that everyone in 2015 April needs to formally enter the Church with 'faith and baptism'. Every one ?
    ___________________
    nor does contemporary Church teaching claim that there is.
    Lionel:
    In general it encourages you to infer that there are exceptions.
    ___________________
    Second, you have failed to show that your interpretation is the traditional interpretation."
    Lionel:
    Before 1949 there was only one traditional interpretation of the dogma.So when you avoid the Cushing error you are back to the old theology, the exclusivist ecclesiology.Its simple.
    ________________________

    You keep going on about "exceptions," but contemporary Church teaching, just like historic Church teaching, does not speak of baptism of desire as an exception to EENS.
    Lionel:
    Contemporary Church implies it is.
    The secular media criticizes Fr.Leonard Feeney and so do the theological papers of the International Theological Commission. Cardinal Kaspar and other cardinals also criticize Fr.Leonard Feeney.
    Pope Benedict has said in public that Jews do not need to convert. Pope Francis has criticized triumphalism.No one has said Marchetti and Cushing were really in heresy.
    __________________________
    Every comment that you make talking about exceptions is completely and utterly irrelevant to contemporary Church teaching.
    Lionel:
    I affirm the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. You do not agree with me. So for you there must be exceptions. Since there are exceptions for you I have to address the issue.
    Otherwise for me it is not an issue. I hold the traditional view which was clear for centuries in the Catholic Church.
    _________________________
    You have also failed to show, in even the slightest sense, that your interpretation of EENS - what you call the rigorist position, that the only way to be inside the Church and therefore find salvation is through water baptism - is the tradition al interpretation of the dogma.
    Lionel:
    I have quoted Ad Gentes 7. It says all need faith and baptism for salvation.What more could I say.
    I have quoted the text of Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441. It is clear here too.
    _________________________
    The magisterial documents, even your very citations, refute that your interpretation is the traditional one.
    Lionel:
    Magisterial documents, would refute my interpretation ?.  They would refute it if I was using the irrational premise and inference. So I can understand why you think like this. You still approach this issue with the Marchetti-Cushing mind-set.
    __________________
    Over and over they admit the efficacy of baptism of desire for salvation, not as an exception to EENS, but as a way to be inside the Church.
    Lionel:
    You are inside the Church with the baptism of water and Catholic Faith. This was traditional.It is the ordinary way. There cannot be an exceptional way known to us.
    ____________________
    Over and over the magisterium of the Church rejects your position.
    Lionel:
    The contemporary magisterium rejects the traditional magisterium on this issue since they use Cushingism. So they would also contradict my position since I use Feeneyism as a theology, to interpret pre-Vatican Council II  and post Vatican Council II documents.
    We have popes and cardinals after 1949 supporting, often with silence, what is irrational and heretical.
    _____________________
    You can call your interpretation "centuries old" or "traditional" but that does not make it so.
    Lionel:
    The text is still the same.The statements of the popes and saints are still there to know what was the centuries old interpretation of the dogma.
    ______________________
    Because the documents of the Church's magisterium refute your central premise, all the rest of your argumentation falls.
    Lionel:
    The documents of the Church's magisterium interpreted with Cushingism (only) would refute my traditional view.
    The same documents interpreted without Cushingism support me and contradict your view.
    __________________________
    If you cannot prove that your interpretation is the traditional one - and you can't because I've laid out above how every single citation you've given has not only failed to support your assertion but has in fact refuted it - then there is nothing left to argue.
    Lionel:
    You cannot cite hypothetical cases, assume they are objectively known on April 13,2015 and then claim that traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus is refuted.
    Even a non Catholic would know you are being irrational. You  contradict what is common knowledge i.e the dead now saved in Heaven cannot be personally known or seen on earth.
    ______________________
    If you are just going to keep harping on the house of sticks you have built on that foundation of sand, the I simply have nothing else to say and our discourse will have to be at an end.
    You have to ask yourself in whom you will trust. As a Jesuit, Feeney made a solemn vow to God to obey the Pope.
    Lionel:
    The popes and cardinals made a profession of faith.Then they allowed a new doctrine to enter the Church, based on an irrational premise. This was also first class heresy. It changed the meaning of the Nicene Creed, 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins', now meant,' I believe in three or more baptisms without the baptism of water for the forgiveness of sins.'
    They also had to put away the Athanasius Creed.Since then the error would be too obvious.The Creed which said outside the Church there is no salvation had become obsolete and wrong?! The dogma developed?
    __________________
    When he refused to go to Rome to account for his theology, he broke that vow.
    Lionel:
    There was no formal request.There were technical issues.Canon Law was not followed.He read about the charge in the newspapers.The Archbishop of Boston was in clear heresy...
    ___________________
    Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would protect the Church from error.
    Lionel:
    Yes.
    Now the error has been identified. Over time people will realize that what Feeney taught and believed in was de fide and it was Cushing and Marchetti who were in heresy.
    We must give credit to the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney, the St. Benedict Centers in the USA, who preserved the truth for us.They did not accept the error like other traditionalists.
    ________________________________
    So what are you going to trust? The words of Jesus, God made man come to save us from sin, or the words of Feeney, a man who broke his vow to God. Jesus? Or the vow breaker? You choose.
    Lionel:
    I could put that same question to you. Who are you going to choose ? The words of Jesus ( John 3:5, Mk.16:16) or the words of Cushing, a man who rejected a dogma defined by three Church Councils and who changed the meaning of the Nicene Creed.
    -Lionel Andrades
    http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2015/03/dont-blame-vatican-ii.html#comment-1961205650


    The error was not corrected. Cushing brought it into Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) with no opposition. Even the traditionalists agreed with him!
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/04/the-error-was-not-corrected-cushing.html

     

    The error was not corrected. Cushing brought it into Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) with no opposition. Even the traditionalists agreed with him!

       
    Creative Minority Report
    Lionel:
    Water baptism is necessary for salvation.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).”
    wineinthewater:
    Redemptoris Missio 55 never makes any claims that support your point. In fact, it says: “Dialogue should be conducted and implemented with the conviction that the Church is the ordinary means of salvation and that she alone possesses the fullness of the means of salvation.” Ordinary means necessitates extraordinary means.
    Lionel:
    'The ordinary means of salvation ' is Catholic Faith and the baptism of water. The ordinary means of salvation cannot be the baptism of desire and being a martryr.
    We can administer the baptism of water. We cannot give anyone the baptism of desire or blood.
    __________________________
     
    Trent is clear about the non-necessity of actual water baptism: “By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.”
    Lionel:
    'without the laver of regeneration', is a reference to the baptism of water.
    ' or the desire thereof', refers to the desire for  the laver of regeneration, which is the desire for the baptism of water.
    Why do you mention this, are you inferring that this is a known exception to the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus?
    This would be the mistake of the 1949 Letter.If they just accepted the baptism of desire ( as I do) and left it at that it would be fine.Instead they assumed that it was an exception to the dogma. Here they brought in the irationality.How can people unknown to us and known only to God be an explicit exception to all needing to be formal members of the Church for salvation?
    ___________________________
    wineinthewater:
    Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors does not make your point.
    Lionel:
    The Syllabus of Errors says every one needs to be a formal member of the Church for salvation.This is in agreement with the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma.
    _______________________________
     
    Dominus Iesus 20 actually explicitly warns against what you are trying to do. It is clear that visible membership in the Church is not necessary to be inside the Church or for salvation: “For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, “salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit”; it has a relationship with the Church, which “according to the plan of the Father, has her origin in the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit”.”
    Lionel:
    Here is Dominus Iesus 20 affirming the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extar ecclesiam nulla salus.
    Above all else, it must be firmly believed that “the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door”-Dominus Iesus 20
    Extra ecclesiam nulla salus!
    This doctrine must not be set against the universal salvific will of God (cf. 1 Tim 2:4); “it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation”.
    -Dominus Iesus 20
    Further clarification on extra ecclesiam nulla salus in this passage above.
    wineinthewater:
    “For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church,
    Lionel:
    These cases are unknown to us in the present times so they are not exceptions to the above passages or to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
    With Cushingism they would be exceptions.
    ________________
     
    “salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation.
    Lionel:
    We do not known any such case. So this passage is not a contradiction to the earlier orthodox one.
    This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit”; it has a relationship with the Church, which “according to the plan of the Father, has her origin in the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit”.”
    Lionel:
    The reference is to a hypothetical case. A theoretical case cannot be a defactocase. It cannot be  explicit, seen in the flesh.So it is not relevant to the dogma.
    If you use Cushing's irrational premise and inference then you can make it appear relevant.With the Feeneyite approach this passage is not a contradiction to the dogma.
    _____________________
     
    wineinthewater:
    The 1917 Code of Canon Law is clear about the effect of baptism of desire: “Can. 206 §1 Catechumens are linked with the Church in a special way since, moved by the Holy Spirit, they are expressing an explicit desire to be incorporated in the Church. By this very desire, as well as by the life of faith, hope and charity which they lead, they are joined to the Church which already cherishes them as its own.
    Lionel:
    It is referring to a hypothethical case. There is no such case known to us. There cannot be such a case known to us humans. So it cannot be inferred that Canon Law is referring to a known exception to the dogma. It would irrational.
    ______________________________
     
    Finally, the Catechism of Pius X explicitly rejects the absolute necessity of water baptism and visible membership in the Church:
    “29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
    A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation.”
    Lionel:
    One again this is a reference to an hypothethical case. In theory a person could be saved as such for me ( followed with the baptism of water) in reality we do not and cannot know such a case for it to be considered an exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma. With or without the baptism of water, whatever be the argument, it is still an invisible case.It is a zero case, in the words of John Martignoni the apologist, who says there are no known exeptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.There are no known exceptions to the dogma says  the Benedictine Dean of Theology at the St.Anselm University in Rome, Fr.S.Visintin.Many priests here agree with him.
    wineinthewater:
    I don’t think I’ve seen a more explicit rejection of Feeney’s theology than this.
    Lionel:
    You have cited hypothetical cases and assumed they are known to us in the present times (2015) to be explicit exceptions to the dogma. Is this rational? People in Heaven are known on earth for you, to be  exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church in the present times.
    ___________________________
     
    Visible membership is not necessary, water baptism is not necessary.
    Lionel:
    The dogma says it is necessary and the pre and post Vatican Council II texts which I have quoted say it is necessary.
    Here is the Gospel Reading for today (April 13,2015)
    There was a Pharisee named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.
    He came to Jesus at night and said to him,
    “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God,
    for no one can do these signs that you are doing
    unless God is with him.”
    Jesus answered and said to him,
    “Amen, amen, I say to you,
    unless one is born from above, he cannot see the Kingdom of God.”
    Nicodemus said to him,
    “How can a man once grown old be born again?
    Surely he cannot reenter his mother’s womb and be born again, can he?”
    Jesus answered,
    “Amen, amen, I say to you,
    unless one is born of water and Spirit
    he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.
    What is born of flesh is flesh
    and what is born of spirit is spirit.
    Do not be amazed that I told you,
    ‘You must be born from above.’
    The wind blows where it wills,
    and you can hear the sound it makes,
    but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes;
    so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
    ____________________
    Being inside the Church is necessary, and while water baptism and formal membership are the ordinary means of being inside, they are not the exclusive means.
    Lionel:
    Even if they were not the exclusive means they are not known to us .So they cannot be an example of salvation outside the Church, or an exception to the dogma. This was the basic Marchetti-Cushing flaw.
    ______________________
     
      These other means are not “exceptions” to the dogma, they are extraordinary means available to God to fulfill the dogma. The magisterium is painfully clear.
    Lionel:
    Are you affirming the rigorist interpretation of the dogma, the traditional understanding of the Councils, popes and saints? No. So there are known exceptions for you.
    _______________________
     
    Yet in the face of all this explicit and implicit teaching, Fr. Feeney tells us “Baptism of Water, or damnation! If you do not desire that Water, you cannot be justified. And if you do not get it, you cannot be saved!”
    Lionel:
    Correct. Defacto all need it.
    This is also the message in magisterial teachings which I have cited above i.e 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.
    _______________________
     
     and you say “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.”
    Lionel:
    Yes.
    ________________________
     
    You also say:
    “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.”
    Lionel:
    According to the dogma. (Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441)
    According to Vatican Council II ( Ad Gentes 7, all need faith and baptism for salvation).
    _________________________
    Where? I have quoted pretty much every magisterial teaching you have mentioned. Where does a single one of them say that baptism of desire will always be followed with baptism of water?
    Lionel:
    The dogma was clear that the ordinary means of salvation is the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
    You do not know of any exception. Neither did Cardinal Ratzinger know of any exception.Neither did Marchetti-Cushing.So all we have are hypothetical cases, which you have cited here.That's fine. As you long as you do not postulate that these cases are known to us in the present times.
    __________________________
     
      You keep talking about this “irrational proposition,” but I think an even more irrational proposition is the suggestion that the Church would spend so much time about talking about the effectiveness of baptism of desire if every baptism of desire was followed by water baptism. If there is always a water baptism, there is no point in talking about baptism of desire at all.
    Lionel:
    The references to the baptism of desire etc being relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus has come into the Church in 1949. The error was not corrected. So Cushing brought it into Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) with no opposition. Even the tradtionalists agreed with him!
    ____________________________
     
    Your descent into conspiracy speculation at the end of your comment makes me fear that rational discourse may be to no end. 
    Lionel:
    No conspiracy here. Every thing is in black and white and can be confirmed. One can use an irrational inference, or avoid it , in the interpretation of magisterial texts.
    The Magisterium used the irrational inference in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1257 etc).
    ____________________________
     
    I have given you the actual magisterial texts that either explicitly or implicitly refute the Feeney-ite heresy.
    Lionel:
    You have cited magisterial texts. Then you have assumed that these texts do not refer to hypothetical cases but known cases in the present times. So then you conclude that these 'objective' cases for you, are exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma. So you have given us magisterial texts interpreted with the irrational premise. The irrational premise is that salvation in Heaven is personally known and visible on earth. Then you have made an irrational inference. It  is that since these cases are personally known in the present times they are exceptions to all needing to enter the Church in the present times, for salvation.
    ________________________________
     
     
      (The fact that you cite them as if they support your position when they in fact refute it makes me wonder if you have even read them or if you are just copying a list of supposed proofs from some Feeney-ite tract on the internet.)
    Lionel:
     Here are my quotes supporting the Feeenyite interpretation of the dogma  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.You personally do not know any exception in the present times.Neither can you cite any magisterial text before 1949 which says there are known exceptions in the present times.You cannot name any one who is in Heaven without 'faith and baptism' on April 13,2015 to be an exception to the dogma.You cannot meet someone saved with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water today.So you cannot know of any exception to all needing to formally enter the Church to avoid Hell.
    -Lionel Andrades 
     
     
    April 11, 2015