|
Post by Lionel on Mar 19, 2018 9:24:22 GMT -5
Hi Every one. I am a Catholic who lives a very private life in Rome.I have a blog Eucharist and Mission which tries to show the unity between the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known to the missionaries and Magisterium of the 16th century and Vatican Council II, interpreted without the irrational premise, the Cushingite error.I support the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS without rejecting the baptism of desire(BOD),baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I).I believe we can affirm EENS and also implicit for us, hypothetical and known only to God baptism of desire(BOD). So for me it is not either EENS or BOD. I attend Mass, in all rites, with the old exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church. I am not a traditionalist who rejects the BOD, BOB and I.I and affirms Feeneyite EENS only. Neither am I a traditionalist who affirms BOD, BOB and I.I and rejects EENS according to the Church Councils. Neither am I a liberal who attends the Novus Ordo Mass affirms BOD,BOB and I.I and rejects the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS. I am a Catholic who chooses to live in silence. I do not read the newspapers or watch TV.I do not use the postal system or telephones.I do not have much of a social life.I spend my time in the churches or libraries of Rome.Prayer is important for me.I need to prayer. I also do not like to talk about myself.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Mar 19, 2018 11:16:49 GMT -5
Sounds like a perfect fit! Welcome. What is your blog url
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Mar 19, 2018 11:55:43 GMT -5
Hi Lionel, Welcome to the forum. In your OP, you leave unanswered whether you submit by a religious assent to the 1949 teaching of the Holy Office, Suprema Haec Sacra, on EENS, that was approved by Pope Pius XII. You can find the document HEREYou can find an excellent commentary on Suprema Haec Sacra, by Msgr. Fenton HERE
|
|
|
Post by Lionel on Mar 21, 2018 12:13:30 GMT -5
Yes I submit but I interpret it rationally and traditionally. I affirm the first part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, which supports Feeneyite EENS(extra ecclesiam nulla salus) and EENS according to the Church Councils and for example the missionaries and Magisterium of the 16th cetntury. I reject the second part, since it contradicts the first part by assuming invisible for us baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are visible exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS. I affirm the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance. I repeat, that I affirm the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invncible ignorance(I.I) but they refer to invisible and not visible cases, hypothetical and not explicitly known people in the present times.So for me they were never ever exceptions or relevant to the dogma EENS. So I affirm BOD, BOB and I.I like the popes and saints and I am aware that, like me, they did not state that these cases were personally known or explicit. So unlike the liberal theologians, they did not connect them to EENS or suggest that they were known examples of salvation outside the Church. So I affirm the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 but interpret it rationally, hypothetical and invisible cases are just hypothetical and invisible.
Similarly I affirm Vatican Council II. However interpret the Council with hypothetical cases of LG 8,LG 16, UR 3, GS 22 ,NA 2 etc just being hypothetical. So they are not visible examples of salvation outside the Church, for me.They are not exceptions to the traditional exclusivist interpretation of salvation.
So for me BOD,BOB and I.I are in harmony with exclusivist EENS and I accept them. Vatican Council II (LG 8, LG 16, GS 22 etc) is in harmony with EENS according to the Magisterium of the 16th century, and I accept both of them, Vatican Council II and Feeneyite EENS. For me it is not either or, I do not have to choose between BOD, BOB and I.I and EENS.The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 did choose and so made a mistake.This was because what is invisible was considered visible. So the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church before and after Vatican Council II,for me, is the same. It is traditional and rational.-Lionel
|
|
|
Post by Lionel on Mar 21, 2018 12:15:59 GMT -5
The title of my blog is : EUCHARIST AND MISSION (LIONEL'S BLOG)
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Mar 21, 2018 16:04:26 GMT -5
The title of my blog is : EUCHARIST AND MISSION (LIONEL'S BLOG) Is there a link to the blog
|
|
|
Post by Lionel on Mar 22, 2018 7:01:32 GMT -5
I don't know how to find the link or url.May be somebody an help me.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Mar 22, 2018 8:14:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Lionel on Mar 22, 2018 9:37:58 GMT -5
Search Lionel's Blog on Google.
|
|
clare
Junior Member
Posts: 51
|
Post by clare on Mar 23, 2018 8:42:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Mar 23, 2018 11:02:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Mar 23, 2018 11:03:16 GMT -5
That wonderful convergence means that Lionel is no longer with us.
|
|
clare
Junior Member
Posts: 51
|
Post by clare on Mar 23, 2018 15:25:34 GMT -5
That wonderful convergence means that Lionel is no longer with us. I had a feeling his days might be numbered!
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Mar 23, 2018 21:45:15 GMT -5
That wonderful convergence means that Lionel is no longer with us. I had a feeling his days might be numbered! Was it the proof-texting or the excessive use of formatting that gave it away?
|
|