Apologist John Martignoni was not referring to a 'good or non -good' non Catholic he was saying that the baptism of desire is not an explicit exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Whether the baptism of desire results in justification only ,or justification and salvation, is irrelevant to the dogma. He was not discussing theology. He was just saying that the baptism of desire is irrelevant to the dogma since ,'zero cases of something are not exceptions'.
I mention this with regard to two comments by Giles on Rorate Caeli in response to my original comment (1). Here are Giles comments.(2)-
Lionel Andrades
1.
According to the Catholic apologist John Martignoni Vatican Council II does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors. This is relevant for the SSPX.
Implicit intention, invincible ignorance and a good conscience (LG 16)etc in Vatican Council II do not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus says John Martigioni.
John Martignoni the well known Catholic apologist has answered the two important questions cited on Rorate Caaeli and which was answered by priests at a conference in Italy recently.
Martigioni has said that in the year 2012 we cannot know any one saved in invincible ignorance, the baptism of desire, a good conscience, seeds of the word (AG 7), imperfect communion with the Church. Also that these cases annot be considered exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors.
In e-mail messages to me John Martigioni who is also the Director of the Office of the New Evangelisation and Stewardship, Diocese of Birmingham,USA wrote
- Even if we could know, in this lifetime, which we can’t, that someone has been saved even though they were invincibly ignorant, or if someone has been saved through the Baptism of Desire, etc., it would not be an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is because they would be saved through the Church by some extraordinary means known unto God alone. So, it would still be that outside the Church, there is no salvation.
A member of the Diocesan Staff under Bishop Robert J.Baker he observed ‘How can zero cases of something be considered exceptions?’
- I wrote:You would also agree that since implicit intention, invincible ignorance and a good conscience(LG 16) are possibilities mentioned in Vatican Council II and not defacto,known exceptions to the dogma, so Vatican Council II in these cases does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
- He replied,'Yes, I agree that none of those things would contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus.'
Director of the Office of the New Evangelization and Stewardship,Diocese of Birmingham in Alabama,USA, 2121 3rd Ave. N., P.O. Box 12047, Birmingham, AL 35202-2047 Phone: ( 205) 776-7163 Email: jmartignoni@bhmdiocese.org
10 November, 2012 09:44
2.
Giles said...
The problem with the analysis you have passed on is that it begins to be assumed that every "good" non-Catholic is saved.
Can anyone be termed "good" who dies in mortal sin? Without the Sacrament of Penance, it would be naive to believe that most people die without deliberate mortal sin on their souls. Also, the great spiritual writers were clear about the effects of habitually committed mortal sin. What often passes for the description of a "good" non-Catholic is the quality of "niceness." Nice doesn't cut it.
Nor can Mr. Martigioni know the graces for conversion which were offered and rejected by every person who dies without the Sacrament of Baptism.
Much is presumed by Mr. Martigioni's analysis: FAR too much.
_____________________________________________________
Permit me to add another observation. The Church has always taught that it was POSSIBLE for a soul to be saved who died outside the Catholic Church. But it never presumed it was PROBABLE. Hence the great missionary efforts of the Church.
Since Vatican II, the Church has acted as if MOST are saved. Without putting too fine a point on it (and I use the example only because it is so illustrative) but take the example of Pope John Paul II addressing voodoo priests in Africa -- and telling them to go back and be faithful to the practice of their religious traditions (even though not a few of them worship the demonic). The presumption was that faithful ignorance suffices for salvation.
I've had many an argument with those devoted to the position of Father Feeney (who, by the way, stated that he did NOT know whether or not "justification" without water baptism was sufficient for salvation). To their intransigence on the strict necessity of water baptism, I respond that it's best to say, if asked, that one does not know if a good Muslim next door neighbor who died without Baptism was saved. One could say that there was no reason to believe so, but that we must leave the judgment to God.
Posts
