Bishop Robert J. Baker and Raymond Arroyo could clarify if Mother Angelica was correct on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus since there are no known exceptions in 2016

Bishop Robert J.Baker is the bishop the diocese of Birmingham in Alabama  where EWTN is situated. John Martignoni is the Director of the Office of the New Evangelization and Stewardship in the diocese and is a well known Catholic apologist  with a program on EWTN.

John Martignoni  has said that 'Zero cases of something are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.' In other words we do not know of any explicit exception to all needing to enter the Church for salvation in 2016.This is something obvious. We cannot see any exceptions.

Even for Mother Angelica the founder of EWTN there were no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.She had posted a list on EWTN of the popes and saints affirming the dogma like the 16th century missionaries.It was not like Pope Benedict in his recent interview with Avvenire.

I have asked John Martignoni if there are any exceptions to EENS mentioned in Vatican Council II for him, since for me there are none. He will not answer.He said there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS but would not comment on Vatican Council II.

Neither will Bishop Baker or the directors and officials of his diocese offices put forward an answer.

They will not disagree or agree with John Martignoni and Bishop Thomas E. Gullickson who say there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS.Obviously there are no known  exceptions! 

For Raymond Arroyo and the speakers on EWTN  situated in Alabama, the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Even for EWTN 's National Catholic Register correspondents there are known exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. For Mark Shea and Edward Pentin there are known exceptions.

MOTHER ANGELICA'S EENS

Why cannot we all go back to Mother Angelica's understanding of extra ecclesiam nulla salus,as interpreted by the 16th century missionaries ? John Martignoni, says there are no known exceptions to the dogma  and Bishop Robert Baker does not know of any one today who does not need to be 'card carrying member of the Church', to avoid the fires of Hell. So why cannot we affirm EENS as did Mother Angelica?

DIOCESE CLARIFICATION

The  diocese of  Birmingham in Alabama and EWTN could  officially affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus  with no known exceptions in 2016.No one in the diocese knows of any exception.

EXCEPTIONS FOR THE POPE

Pope Benedict has said that 'the dogma has evolved' but we do not know of any exceptions, there is no known salvation outside the Church. Pope Benedict could confirm for EWTN or the diocese of Alabama, that he does not know of any one saved outside the Church, without 'faith and baptism'(AG 7, LG 14).He personally does not know of any one who would be an exception to the 16th century Catholic interpretation of  the dogma.

BISHOPS MISTAKE

The liberal bishop who took over EWTN from Mother Angelica possibly told her that LG 16 for example was an exception to her understanding of EENS. In other words LG 16 referrred not to an invisible but a visible case. It would have to be somebody personally known, physically known to be an exception.Is there such a person for the present bishop in the diocese of EWTN ?

CONFIRMATION NEEDED

We now know that the liberal bishop who initially took over EWTN, which was being criticized by the National Catholic Reporter, assumed that there were known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.He made an objective mistake we  now know.So  could Bishop Robert J. Baker confirm this? 

RAYMOND ARROYO

He could simply confirm that there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, there are no known cases in 2016 of persons saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. He could confirm that in 2016 we do not know of any person saved with the baptism of desire and blood or in invincible ignorance, without the baptism of water .

He could ask Raymond Arroyo to state his position on this issue.

FOR ME

1.I personally do not know of any such case of someone being saved without the baptism of water 

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 ' (Council of Trent) do not state that these cases were explicit and personally known. It was theologians who interpreted these cases as being explicit.So when a  baptism of desire list is presented, for me,there is not a single reference which says that these cases are objective or relevant to EENS.The entire list is irrelevant to EENS. They are not exceptions.

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' 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 any of the speakers on EWTN says there is salvation outside the Church it is speculation. This speculation cannot be posited as being an explicit exception to the dogma on salvation.

AGREE WITH ME

Bishop Baker, Raymond Arroyo and the EWTN speakers and apologists could say  for example the following. 

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. This is a rational option.

2.They could  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.The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made an objective mistake when it assumed that hypothetical cases were objectively known.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.

INVISIBLE OR VISIBLE

As I mentioned in a comment on a post on The Catholic World Report, for  me Lumen Gentium  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.Is it the same for Bishop Robert J. Baker ?

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. It is  not affirming Vatican Council II in line with the dogma EENS.It is  changing 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 a non traditional inference ( these explicit cases in Heaven or earth are known exceptions to EENS).This is being done on EWTN and in the religious and catechetical departments of the EWTN diocese.Could we have a clarification ?.

-Lionel Andrades

The local liberal bishop took over EWTN and projected being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) as an exception to Mother Angelica's understanding of the dogma on salvation

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/the-local-liberal-bishop-took-over-ewtn.html

È morta Madre Angelica, fondatrice di Ewtn

(di Mauro Faverzani) È morta proprio il giorno di Pasqua, lo scorso 27 marzo, a 92 anni, Madre Maria Angelica dell’Annunciazione, al secolo Rita Rizzo, la Clarissa che nel 1981 fondò l’Ewtn-Eternal World Television Network.

È stata la prima donna nella storia della televisione a riuscire in una simile impresa, oltre tutto senza soldi e senza particolare esperienza, nonché la prima a guidare un media di queste dimensioni, affermato in tutto il mondo, per ben vent’anni. La sua infanzia fu segnata dal divorzio dei genitori, che si lasciarono quando lei aveva soli 6 anni. Un’inaspettata guarigione da adolescente la spinse poi a donarsi totalmente a Dio: così, a 21 anni, il 15 agosto 1944, entrò nell’Ordine delle Clarisse dell’Adorazione Perpetua di Cleveland. Guarita, dopo un delicato intervento chirurgico, dalle brutte conseguenze di un incidente, mantenne il voto fatto a Dio di costruire un nuovo monastero a Sud, in Alabama.

Nel 1971 approdò al mondo delle comunicazioni con un programma radiofonico di una decina di minuti su WBRC, per poi giungere alla televisione, dove realizzò diversi programmi per alcuni network, prima di decidere di mettersi in proprio, senza preoccuparsi dei costi di una simile impresa. Fondò così Ewtn in un garage, senza avere compiuto studi particolari nel settore ed, oltre tutto, con un “capitale” d’avvio di soli 200 dollari. Eppure, le trasmissioni iniziarono: era il 15 agosto 1981, solennità dell’Assunzione di Maria.

All’inizio lei fu Presidente ed amministratore delegato, assumendosi in proprio le responsabilità e le fatiche dell’avventura appena iniziata. Avvalendosi di tali cariche, rifiutò sempre recisamente la pubblicità, decidendo di far conto, nonostante le difficoltà implicite in tale scelta, esclusivamente sulle offerte dei fedeli.

Oggi l’emittente, con 400 dipendenti, viene seguita da 264 milioni di famiglie in 145 diversi Paesi del mondo, vanta 11 canali televisivi separati in più lingue, ha piattaforme multiple radio-on line-media digitali, servizi di global news ed un gruppo editoriale, che pubblica il National Catholic Register, la Catholic News Agency ed altre testate. Vi svolgono il proprio apostolato anche i 15 frati della comunità dei “Missionari Francescani del Verbo Eterno”, pure da lei fondati.

Nel 1983 Madre Maria Angelica lanciò il suo popolare appuntamento televisivo,Madre Angelica Live, tradotto in più lingue, tra cui spagnolo, tedesco ed ucraino. Si è sempre servita dei media, per diffondere una fede senza compromessi, nonché per sostenere le campagne pro-life e pro-family, dedicando intere trasmissioni contro l’aborto ed a favore della famiglia naturale, l’unica possibile. Ad esempio, sua è stata la scelta di mandare in onda integralmente la celebre e partecipata Marcia per la Vita di Washington. Nel 2000 Madre Maria Angelica ha lasciato la guida del suo network. Alla vigilia di Natale dell’anno successivo, ha patito il suo primo ictus, che la privò della possibilità di parlare, ma non della facoltà di pregare. La salute si fece sempre più inferma, la fede sempre più granitica.

Venerdì 1 aprile alle ore 11 si terranno i suoi funerali presso il Santuario del Santissimo Sacramento di Hanceville. Ovviamente verranno proposti in diretta suEwtn. (Mauro Faverzani)
http://www.corrispondenzaromana.it/e-morta-madre-angelica-fondatrice-di-ewtn/

When the centre of all legislation is not Jesus Christ in the Catholic Church...

When the centre of all legislation is not Jesus Christ in the Catholic Church...
We get this....


And this.....




We have the work of the devil in the name of God.

We have over 1,00,000 Italian babies killed every year through abortion.

Affirm Jesus Christ in the Catholic Church as the centre of all political and social legislation.Since outside the Church there is no known salvation and Hell exists.Every one needs to be ' a card carrying member of the Church' to avoid Hell.(Vatican Council II, Extra ecclesiam nulla salus).

Every one needs to have his name on the Parish Baptism Register to avoid the fires of Hell.

Secularism is no alternative.The Left is of Satan (abortion...).

Sodom and Gommorrah in Italy will bring the wrath of God on Europe.

Only with a non-separation of Church and State, with Jesus as the cenre of all political legislation, can we prevent over 1,00,000 Italian babies from being cruelly killed legally every year.

Knowing that the majority of people are on the way to Hell without 'faith and baptism' ( Vatican Council II, AG 7, LG 14) we must seek legislation with Jesus as the Centre, as he is made known in the only Church he founded, 'the new people of God' ( 'the Church is the new people of God', Nostra Aetate 4, Vatican Council II).

The alternative is secularism - with Satan, as the centre of political legislation.

Choose Jesus. Don't separate the Catholic Faith from political legislation.Since outside the Church there is no salvation (Vatican Council II AG7, LG 14, Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441).

-Lionel Andrades

https://www.facebook.com/702795233100895/photos/pb.702795233100895.-2207520000.1459351319./997308550316227/?type=3&theater

http://www.abortionno.org/

https://mobile.twitter.com/magdicristiano/status/714558637516128259/photo/1

Known salvation (known exceptions) means inferring we can see or know people in 2016 in Heaven or on earth, saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.This fantasy inference is not made by me it is inferred by Pope Benedict. I am only pointing it out

 Comments from Musings of a Pertinacious Papist :"The one thing, the first thing, the only thing that matters for the Church is to save souls!"

Anonymous said...

I would put "known salvation" in the same receptacle as Balthasar's "dare we hope . . . " That is, the trash bin reserved for perniciously "hypothetical" notions at odds with tradition and dogma but promoted by theological upstarts to spotlight their egotistical brilliance and push their zeitgeist-driven agendas.

.

I would put "known salvation" in the same receptacle as Balthasar's "dare we hope . . . " That is, the trash bin reserved for perniciously "hypothetical" notions at odds with tradition and dogma but promoted by theological upstarts to spotlight their egotistical brilliance and push their zeitgeist-driven agendas. 

Lionel:

Known salvation (Known exceptions) simply means inferring that we can see or know people in the present times( for example 2016) who are in Heaven or on earth, saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.This fantasy inference is not made by me it is inferred by Pope Benedict and I am only pointing it out .

The inference is made for example, when it is said that the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance, refer to baptisms without the baptism of water( Wow! How would you know?!) and so there is salvation outside the Church(Yep! You've seen them in Heaven without 'faith and baptism').

For me there is no known salvation and so I follow the old ecclesiology based on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

-Lionel Andrades

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6312447&postID=2702835882696222549

"Thanks for providing this! God bless the Society!", " I agree with much of what Lionel says" http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/thanks-for-providing-this-god-bless.html

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

For there to be an exception to EENS it would mean there is a known case, a physically known case in the present times, who made it to Heaven without the baptism of water.An invisible case cannot be an exception.

  Comments from Crisis Magazine :Léon Bloy’s Role in the Catholicism of Jacques and Raissa Maritain
 

 Michael Paterson-Seymour
“If there is some one saved without the intervention of this one Church it would not be known to us.”
One example would appear to be the ever-august Emperor Valentinian II, whose obsequies were performed by St Ambrose of Milan.
Lionel:
How would the Emperor or St. Ambrose know that this person is in Heaven without the baptism of water ?
How could they know that this person did not die with a mortal sin known only to God?
How can this speculative case, acceptable with good will, be an explicit example of someone saved without the baptism of water and so an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS)?
This was the irrational reasoning of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. They assumed hypothetical, speculative cases, were visible to persons on earth. Then they concluded that these 'known cases' were objective exceptions to EENS.
_____________________________

In the fifty-third chapter of his funeral oration, more than a millennium before Trent, this Doctor of the Church says, “If it is really a cause for concern that the mysteries [baptism, confirmation and eucharist] have not been celebrated, it follows that not even martyrs receive crowns, if they are catechumens; for (on that assumption) they cannot be crowned, unless they have been initiated. But if the martyrs have,in fact, been baptised in their own blood, then Valentinian’s piety and intention have, in effect, baptised him, too.”
Lionel:
Yes it is hoped that he is in Heaven. We cannot assume that this is a known case or an an exception to EENS. For there to be an exception to EENS it would mean there is a known case, a physically known case in the present times, who made it to Heaven without the baptism of water. An invisible case cannot be an exception.
-Lionel Andrades

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2016/leon-bloys-role-in-the-catholicism-of-jacques-and-raissa-maritain#comment-2596505076