John Henry Weston Editor of Life Sites news could simply announce that there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).Why does he not affirm the dogma EENS, the traditional teaching on salvation ? He expects Pope Francis to affirm moral theology without exceptions; without subjective exceptions but he will not do the same with Catholic salvation theology.
Moral theology is not controversial but salvation theology is .All these years John Henry Weston would not affirm the dogma EENS since it was not politicaly correct. It could be the same with Pope Francis. He is obliged to make changes in Catholic moral theology to be politically correct.
Cardinal Burke, John Henry Weston, the 23 scholars and the others who rightly support the dubbia, like I do, could also support traditional Catholic salvation theology.
1.They could say the obvious,that the baptism of desire is invisible.
So it cannot be an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The Holy Office and the Archdiocese made a mistake in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case.The magisterium made a mistake.
2.Since the baptism of desire is invisible and not relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus it changes our interpretation of Vatican Council II.The Council Fathers made a mistake at Vatican Council II. They assumed that hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were not hypothetical.
So Vatican Council II is really in accord with the dogma EENS as it was known in the 16th century.The magisterium made a mistake.Let's have LifeSites say this.
3.Since the baptism of desire is always implicit for us, it is hypothetical and not visible any personal case in 2016, it is not an exception to the dogma EENS. So we can affirm invisible for us baptism of desire and also 'the rigorist interpretation' of the dogma EENS.They are compatible. They do not conflict. It does not violate the Principle of Non Contradiction.
So the magisterium made a mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. It assumed that the baptism of desire was an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS.
What stops John Henry Weston, the four cardinals and the 23 cardinals affirming this ? Since they care about Catholic doctrine and believe that the magisterium, like that of Pope Francis', can be wrong so why not clarify the error in Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
-Lionel Andrades
DECEMBER 16, 2016
The popes are not affirming the faith: but neither are John Henry Weston and Joseph Shaw
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/12/the-popes-are-not-affirming-faith-but.html
November 6, 2016
November 6, 2016
When Vatican Council II is not a rupture with Tradition and there are no 'ambiguities' in it, then the Novus Ordo Mass theologically should not be a rupture with Tradition.
November 5, 2016
So this is why Vatican Council II for you is a rupture with Tradtiion. It is a rupture with St. Ignatius of Antoich because of the false premise, the irrational premise
November 5, 2016
The traditionalists are using the same innovative theology as Archbishop Augustine di Noia and Cardinal Muller at the Vatican
November 5, 2016
No doctrine was changed in the text of Vatican Council II.However an irrational theology was used.With this theology the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which is a foundation dogma for other doctrine( ecumenism etc) was discarded
November 5, 2016
The ambiguities in Vatican Council II are there ONLY when an irrational premise and conclusion is employed
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/11/the-ambiguities-in-vatican-council-ii.html
November 5, 2016
November 4, 2016
November 4, 2016
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment