Lionel:
Logical sequence is still theoretical it is not explicit in the present times. For there to be an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) there would have to be an explicit case, for example in 2016, who 1) is in Heaven or on earth saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church or 2) would have to be someone known on earth who is going to be saved without the baptism of water.
In both cases it is practically unknowable for us human beings. So there cannot be practical exceptions to EENS, past of present.
______________________
Your argument that the hypothetical, which is only a possible cannot confirm an exception to no salvation outside the Church.
Lionel:
Yes.
_______________________
There is no means of confirming the hypothetical as a reality.
Lionel:
Agreed.
_________________________
That may be true insofar as actual persons since only God would know.
Lionel:
Agreed!
__________________________
Nonetheless conscience is inviolable.
Lionel:
Conscience is subjective.What is subjective cannot be an objective exception to EENS.
_____________________________
To follow conscience is akin to obeying God. The condition to that however is there are some things we should know. The only exception would be invincible ignorance, meaning that the knowledge in question is not possible for the individual to know.
Lionel:
Assuming there was someone saved in invincible ignorance( with or without the baptism of water) it is an invisible case for us.So it is not relevant or an exception to EENS.
______________________________
Based on this explanation given by Saint Thomas Aquinas in the Summa, which i hold as correct we have to assume, hypothesize there may be persons who are invincibly ignorant of Christ's revelation.
Assuming there was someone saved in invincible ignorance( with or without the baptism of water) it is an invisible case for us.So it is not relevant or an exception to EENS.
Lionel:
Yes there may be a man in the forest, as St. Thomas Aquinas, mentions, who is in invincible ignorance and God would send a preacher to him, since he was to be saved. St. Thomas does not state that this man in the forest can be personally known to us.He does not state that this is an explicit case. So the case of the man in the forest is irrelevant to the dogma EENS. It was liberal theologians after Trent who suggested that the man in the forest in invincible ignorance referred to a personally known case and so it was relevant to EENS.
__________________________
So the teaching extra ecclesiam nulla salus may reasonably be understood as requiring knowledge of Christ's revelation.
Lionel:
The text of the dogma EENS defined by three Church Councils states all need to formally enter the Church for salvation and there are no exceptions.
___________________________
If it were understood as an absolute sans exception you would be correct.
Lionel:
This was how the 16th century missionaries understood EENS.
_____________________________
The Church however has the authority to interpret and teach its doctrines, which are not subject to opinion. Faith in Christ and his Church is a mandate.
Lionel:
O.K but why must we accept a rejection of the dogma EENS based on hypothetical cases being explicit. Then why must we accept this new understanding of EENS which is a rupture with EENS before the Council of Trent. The contemporary magisterium contradicts the pre-Council of Trent magisterium. Why would the Holy Spirit change this de fide teaching.
Then why cannot I accept EENS without the irrationality used above by Cardinal Muller, Archishop Di Noia and Bishop Fellay?
Why must I also interpret Vatican Council II interpreted with this irrationality.Why cannot I accept LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 as referring to hypothetical cases and so are not an exception to the traditional understanding of EENS?
How can a Catholic ethically use a principle which says invisible cases are visible in the present times.And then base one's reality on this ? This is a lie.Also the interpretation of the dogma EENS with the irrationality, of the new theology, as in the case of Muller, Di Noia and Fellay, is also heresy, from the perspective of pre Council of Trent times.
It changes the Nicene Creed to 'I believe in three or more known baptisms, for the forgiveness of sins, and they exclude the baptism of water.They are the baptisms of desire, blood, invincible ignorance etc'.This is first class heresy in the hierarchy of truths of Pope John Paul II. It also contradicts the opening and closing passages of the Athanasius Creed.
-Lionel Andrades
https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2016/06/11/how-it-all-ends-muslim-and-christian-versions/
No comments:
Post a Comment