When will Michael Voris and Fr.John Zuhlsdorf say there are no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus mentioned in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II ? Michael Voris has asked to know from viewers the cause of the crisis in the church.He has mentioned some factors (1).None of them cite the rejection of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with alleged exceptions of being able to see the deceased saved. This is a widespread error among Catholics including those at Church Militant TV.com and Fr.Z's blog?
The reason for the crisis is that most Catholics assume that those who are saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are known exceptions to the centuries old dogma.
For instance, ChurchMilitantTV.com could comment on how can Wikipedia say the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus? Why is Wikipedia allowed to teach this misinformation ?
Similarly how can the American Catholic Encyclopaedia and other encyclopaedias in the USA state the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus? We do not know any such case for it to be an exception in 2012?
When are Fr. John Zuhlsdorf and Michael Voris going to comment on this?
A few years back Simon Rafe in e-mail communication also assumed that these cases were explicit and so exceptions to the dogma. Irrational.
In Church Militant TV ’s Can Non Catholics be saved ? it is said that the Church is the only way to Heaven. True! But non Catholics could be saved and so they are saved in 2012 and so they contradict the dogma?!?
If Church Militant TV said all non Catholics in 2012 (Protestants included) are oriented to Hell and there are no known exceptions, this would be in agreement with Vatican Council II (AG 7) and the thrice defined dogma. But how could Church Militant TV.com defend itself when callers-in say: " You’re wrong. The Church says a person can be saved in invincible ignorance so every one does not need to enter the Church”. Phone calls would be claiming that these cases are not just accepted in principle but are known to us in the present times.
It has to be explained to them that these cases are irrelevant to the dogma or Vatican Council II (AG 7).
Similarly there could be questions:" Was not Fr. Leonard Feeney excommunicated for denying the baptism of desire and holding the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus?” Even Catholic Answers and Catholics United for the Faith members could be screaming.
It has to be explained to them that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 does not state that these cases are explicit and known to us. It does not state that these cases are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the literal interpretation of Fr. Leonard Feeney. One has to imply that these cases are exceptions.
If the Letter of the Holy Office stated that these cases were explicit exceptions it would be an objective mistake. It is a fact that we cannot see the dead. This would be a factual error. The Letter mentions disobedience and not heresy for the excommunication.So we cannot fault the Letter.
Similarly there is no text in Vatican Council II which makes this false claim. One has to assume and imply wrongly. The text does not say it.
Yes, Jesus called only the Catholic Church “my church” and yes, Scripture says most people are oriented to Hell and so ‘enter through the narrow gate’ but do magisterial texts say the same today? Is this the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II?
1 comment:
When will Michael Voris and Fr.John Zuhlsdorf say there are no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus mentioned in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II ?
Michael Voris has asked to know from viewers the cause of the crisis in the church.He has mentioned some factors (1).None of them cite the rejection of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with alleged exceptions of being able to see the deceased saved. This is a widespread error among Catholics including those at Church Militant TV.com and Fr.Z's blog?
The reason for the crisis is that most Catholics assume that those who are saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are known exceptions to the centuries old dogma.
For instance, ChurchMilitantTV.com could comment on how can Wikipedia say the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus? Why is Wikipedia allowed to teach this misinformation ?
Similarly how can the American Catholic Encyclopaedia and other encyclopaedias in the USA state the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus? We do not know any such case for it to be an exception in 2012?
When are Fr. John Zuhlsdorf and Michael Voris going to comment on this?
A few years back Simon Rafe in e-mail communication also assumed that these cases were explicit and so exceptions to the dogma. Irrational.
In Church Militant TV ’s Can Non Catholics be saved ? it is said that the Church is the only way to Heaven. True! But non Catholics could be saved and so they are saved in 2012 and so they contradict the dogma?!?
If Church Militant TV said all non Catholics in 2012 (Protestants included) are oriented to Hell and there are no known exceptions, this would be in agreement with Vatican Council II (AG 7) and the thrice defined dogma. But how could Church Militant TV.com defend itself when callers-in say:
" You’re wrong. The Church says a person can be saved in invincible ignorance so every one does not need to enter the Church”. Phone calls would be claiming that these cases are not just accepted in principle but are known to us in the present times.
It has to be explained to them that these cases are irrelevant to the dogma or Vatican Council II (AG 7).
Similarly there could be questions:" Was not Fr. Leonard Feeney excommunicated for denying the baptism of desire and holding the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus?” Even Catholic Answers and Catholics United for the Faith members could be screaming.
It has to be explained to them that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 does not state that these cases are explicit and known to us. It does not state that these cases are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the literal interpretation of Fr. Leonard Feeney. One has to imply that these cases are exceptions.
If the Letter of the Holy Office stated that these cases were explicit exceptions it would be an objective mistake. It is a fact that we cannot see the dead. This would be a factual error. The Letter mentions disobedience and not heresy for the excommunication.So we cannot fault the Letter.
Similarly there is no text in Vatican Council II which makes this false claim. One has to assume and imply wrongly. The text does not say it.
Yes, Jesus called only the Catholic Church “my church” and yes, Scripture says most people are oriented to Hell and so ‘enter through the narrow gate’ but do magisterial texts say the same today? Is this the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II?
Yes!
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/12/when-will-michael-voris-and-frjohn.html#links
Post a Comment