Pope Benedict should not promote the irrational and non traditional Rahner-Ratzinger new theology based on known exceptions to the dogma EENS

Comments from Full text of Benedict XVI's recent, rare, and lengthy interview

• Stephen LionelAndrades

  
  

  So you agree that someone could be saved without being baptized by the Christian rite of Baptism?
• Lionel:
• Why do you think I believe that someone could be saved without the baptism of water ?
• 1.I personally do not know of any such case.
• 2.No one in the past could have known of any such case. Physically they could not see people in Heaven saved without the baptism of desire etc.Neither could they say that any particular person on earth was saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
• 3.Those who refer to 'the desirethereof 'do not state that these cases were explicit and personally known. It was theologians who interpreted these cases as being explicit.So when a long list of baptism of desire cases are presented, for me, there is not a single one which says that these cases are objective or relevant to EENS.
• 4. No one who issued the Baltimore Catechism knew of a case of some one saved with 'only the desire' and without the baptism of water. So how could they speculate that the desire thereof ( Council of Trent) was a known baptism like the baptism of water? This was irrational. The baptism of water is physical. The baptism of desire is not.
• So if you say there is salvation outside the Church you are speculating. But you cannot posit this speculation as being an explicit, physical, known exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
• ______________________________
   
• Then I don't see why you're attacking Benedict's statement here.
• Lionel:
•  He is denying the dogma EENS by saying there is a development and it is not longer interpreted as it was in the 16th century. He assumed there is someting in Vatican Council II which has changed the dogma. He laments over the loss of the dogma by he will not affirm it like the 16th century missionaries.
• Neither will he affirm the dogma like me, which is a rational option. He could say  for example :-
• 1. There are no known cases of someone saved outside the Church past or present and so there are no known exceptions to the dogma as it was known in the 16 th century. He does not say this. If he was really sad over the loss of the dogma he could have used this rational option.
• 2.He does not say that LG 16,LG 8, NA 2, UR 3 etc refer to invisible and not visible cases. So there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict EENS as it was known in the past.
• 3.He does not say that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made an objective mistake when it assumed that hypothetical cases were objectively know.There are no known cases of the baptism of desire or blood or being saved in invincible ignorance without the baptism of water in 2016.
• ________________________________________
•  
• He isn't saying that someone has been saved outside the Church, but rather that someone hypothetically could be saved.
• Lionel:
• Even if someone was hypothetically saved outside the Church what has this to do with EENS? An invisiblle case cannot be relevant to EENS. It cannot be an exception to all needing to be 'card carrying members ' of the Church in 2016.
• _______________________________________
 
•  As you keep saying, we do not know that anyone has been saved without receiving baptism in this life, nor are we likely to, since that would provide even less reason to become Christian, as Benedict notes in the article. However, the lack of knowledge that something is fact does not mean that we cannot discuss it, nor that we can reasonably believe it to be true based on our knowledge of other facts. If we can hope that all men might be saved, even those who have not received the Gospel while living here on earth, then we can certainly talk about how that hope changes the perception of the necessity of Baptism among the general populace without espousing heresy.
• Lionel:
• We can discuss it.. But the pope must affirm the dogma as the previous popes in the 16th century and not posit exceptions based on being able to see people in Heaven without the baptism of water. He is not affirming the dogma. Then he is denying it with the use of an irrationality.Where are the people saved outside the Church which is the basis of his theology?
• __________________________________________
• 
  You seem to be generally in agreement with Benedict on the basic theology behind this issue, but with a different focus on weeding out the heretic you would like him to be (for what reason I do not know).
• Lionel:
•  I am not in agreement with Pope Benedict on the basic theology. His basic theology is the new theology which is based on being able to physically see people in Heaven, without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.He then  concludes there is salvation outside the Church. This is fantasy theology. It is an innovation in the Church. This is the irrational theology he uses to interpret Vatican Council II.
• For me LG 16 refers to an invisible case and so it does not contradict EENS. When there are no exceptions to EENS, the theology is once again traditional and rational.
• To change the dogma EENS is heresy. To reject it is heresy.
• To interpret Vatican Council II with an irrationality to produce a non traditional result, is heresy. He is not affirming Vatican Council II in line with the dogma EENS. He has changed the dogma EENS, the Nicene Creed and Vatican Council II with an irrational premise ( physically seeing people saved in Heaven without the baptism of water) and non traditional inference ( these explicit cases in Heaven or earth are known exceptions to EENS).Explicit? Where are these explicit cases?
• ______________________________________
 
• Since you so vehemently object to the possibility that Benedict has a correct understanding of theology, I'm still surprised that you take the CCC as a reliable source, since it was heavily influenced by then-Cardinal Ratzinger as head of the CDF.
• Lionel:
• Inspiter of the error of mentioning the baptism of desire etc in the Catechism and Vatican Council II, we can  interpret the Catechism of the Catholic Church according to Tradition by being aware of  hypothetical cases not being explicit. The same can be done with Vatican Council II.The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, mentioned in Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 are hypotethetical cases.
• Regardless, perhaps we can get more specific to address the problem you have with Benedict's interview
• Lionel: He should not promote the irrational and non traditional Rahner-Ratzinger new theology based on known exceptions to the dogma EENS.
• -Lionel Andrades

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/4650/full_text_of_benedict_xvis_recent_rare_and_lengthy_interview.aspx