There is no advocacy group for extra ecclesiam nulla salus :Bishop of Calgary offers Mass as usual

How can the Holy Spirit teach error and irrationality in the interpretation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II.

There is not a single advocacy group for extra ecclesiam nulla salus. For instance the bishop of Calgary,Canada Bishop Frederick Henry knows that there are no known cases on earth of persons saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.He knows those who are saved in Heaven are not physically visible to us on earth.So he knows that these cases cannot be exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and every one needing to be visible members of the Catholic Church for salvation.There are no known exceptions to the dogma on salvation which says every one needs to convert into the Church to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.So there is nothing in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II to contradict the dogma and Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II which says Catholic Faith and the baptism of water are needed by all for salvation.After knowing all this he will not affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in public and neither the message of Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II.

It is obligatory for all bishops to affirm Vatican Council II and an ex cathedra dogma, in this case, defined three times. The bishop will say that he accepts the Council and the Catechism but he means he accepts them with an irrational premise which says the dead are visible. It is with this premise (the dead man walking theory) that he interprets Magisterial documents as a break with Tradition, a break with the dogma on salvation and the Syllabus of Errors.Canon Law must also apply to the bishop and there is no advocacy group to bring this to his attention.

He sees the Catechism and the Vatican Council II as a break with the past ( dogma on salvation) and with an irrationality (being able to see the dead).This is heretical.

He is implying that the Holy Spirit teaches this error. He does not issue a clarification and continues to offer Holy Mass

He criticizes Vatican Council II while using the dead man walking theory and expects the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) to do the same .

How can he employ lay people and heads of Tribunals who believe that they can see the dead on earth ? How can priests in his diocese deny the Council with the dead man premise?

No one discusses this with him officially since there are no pro extra ecclesiam nulla salus groups as there are pro life organisations in the Catholic Church.

How can someone claim to be Catholic and a competent bishop and then suggest that his priests and nuns in the diocese can see the dead saved in invincible ignorance and a good conscience (LG 16) etc. No one phones him up and tells him that one cannot interpret the Catechism and the Council with this irrationality.There will be informed non Catholics and non Christians who will be wondering as to what is happening in the Catholic Church and the diocese of Calgary.-Lionel Andrades

Lionel,

Invite the bishop here to this forum! He can even post anonymously, even if wants. Just have him use the Tor Browser and pick the pseudonym of his choice. For registration via anonymous email, he can use Tor Mail.

Sometime back I sent e-mails to his diocese but there was no response. Neither did he or the other priests respond at the Angelicum University.

It does not matter what they think. Here are some articles on EENS and Vatican II:

http://www.marycoredemptrix.com/the_center_review_toc.html

These articles unify Vatican II with the Council of Florence, which Vatican II, in Lumen Gentium 51, reaffirmed, so Brother Thomas Mary Sennott must have been on the right track.

Yes.
But did Brother Sennot assume that the baptism of desire was physically visible to us ?

He and Father Laisney dealt with the issue theologically.

Fr.Laisney assumed that the baptism of desire was physically visible to us and an exception to the dogma and so he accepted the baptism of desire and considered it relevant to the dogma.

Did Brother Sennet assume that the baptism of desire was physically visible to us but not an exception to the dogma and so he rejected the baptism of desire (without the baptism of water) but still considered it relevant to the dogma ?