Robert Sungenis

There you will find a better reason than Cardinal Kasper’s as to why Vatican II, which was led by the Holy Spirit just as the twenty councils before it, was divinely permitted to contain ambiguities. It is much deeper than what Cardinal Kasper is revealing. God allowed the ambiguities as a judgment against the Church for her sins.-Robert Sungenis

Understandable but how can the Holy Spirit teach a factual error ?

On the issue of other religions and ecumenism how could God make the present day objective error ?

How could God say that we can see the dead, we can name those non Catholics in Heaven saved with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance, how can God say that those saved with 'elements of sanctification' are visible to the physical eye ?

Yet this is what the liberals and traditionalists are saying and so for them there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and so Vatican Council II is a break with the past.

In a series of talks on the subject No Salvation Outside the Church available on Youtube Robert Sungenis has also said that every one needs to enter the Church except for those in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. Except for these cases? Do we know any of these cases in 2013? Does any Magisterial text say that we know any of these cases ? Why do they have to be mentioned as exceptions?

So on the issue of other religions and ecumenism there is no rational basis for any ambiguity and yet we see so much of it.

So the fault is not with God it is with us.

We just have to correct the irrationality and Vatican Council II is traditional on the issue of other religions and ecumenism.

-Lionel Andrades

http://www.catholicintl.com/index.php/component/content/article/73-vatican/1201-cardinal-kasper-admits-to-intentional-ambiguities-in-vatican-ii

Lionel,

Ask Robert if he thinks that BoD and/or "invincible ignorance" could constitute "null sets" and get back to me (us).

I am in communication with Robert Sungenis.
I had sent him the link to this post and also the one on my blog.
Of course he would be welcome to comment here.
As soon as there is something concrete I will let you know.

Saturday, May 4, 2013
Robert Sungenis has an irrational,non traditional, liberal position position on other religions and ecumenism in Vatican Council II with reference to salvation

According to the apologist Robert Sungenis invincible ignorance and implicit desire are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II since these cases are visible to us in real life . For him this is the teaching of the Holy Spirit.

In communication with me , he maintains the position that 'the Holy Spirit did not teach a factual error. He did not divinely inspire Vatican II. Vatican II was written by men who, by their own admission, sometimes wrote ambiguous statements that could be understood in more than one way'.However it is the teaching of the Holy Spirit, for him, that even though 'all' ' need faith and baptism' for salvation(AG 7,Vatican Council II) there are known, visible to us exceptions. He does not think this position is irrational.

The Americqn Catholic apologist does not interpret invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire, according to tradition but as a break with Tradition, a break with the dogma on salvation and the Syllabus of Errors.

Robert Sungenis says 'Vatican II doesn't teach error regarding "religions and ecumenism." If you believe there is an unadulterated, unambiguous and purposeful error in Vatican II regarding these subjects, then you need to prove it, not just state it.' Yet I am not saying there is an error in Vatican Council II. I am saying there can be two interpretations of the Council on this subject. One is rational the other is not.

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 mentions being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire but does not state that these cases are visible to us. One has to wrongly assume it.Neither does Vatican Council II claim that these cases are visible to us or that they are exceptions to the dogma on salvation or AG 7 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.

I mentioned to Robert Sungenis that 'We agree that Vatican Council II does not teach error regarding other religions and ecumenism and that God does not make mistakes, the Holy Spirit does not make a mistake however I also believe that invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are irrelevant to the dogma on salvation and this would be the rational teaching of the Holy Spirit. This was the teaching over the centuries. They knew that invincible ignorance cases were invisible and so did not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus'.

I asked Robert Sungenis 'How could God say that we can see the dead, that we can name those non Catholics now in Heaven. How can we see those saved with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance, how can God say that those saved with 'elements of sanctification' are visible to the physical eye ?'.He responded 'God didn't pose this scenario. It is your own invention. Catholic doctrine says nothing about "naming" people in heaven as the criterion of whether the doctrine is true or false.' I think we were on different wavelengths.

Then he comes back with a surprise and states 'in no place does Vatican II deny the doctrine of EENS(extra ecclesiam nulla salus).' Confusing! If those saved in invincible ignorance(LG 16) or 'elements of sanctification' (LG are visible to the physical eye, if we personally know these people on earth, then Vatican Council II contradicts extra ecclesiam nulla salus.There would be ambiguity in Vatican Council II.

I mentioned,'Once again we agree that Vatican Council II does not deny the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.' However I need to clarify.

'For me Vatican Council II does not deny the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as interpreted by Fr.Leonard Feeney . Are you also saying this ? Perhaps I asked this question in my last e-mail to you.

'This is important.

'For me too every one needs to convert into the Catholic Church in the present times and there are no known exceptions.

'This is what you too may have said in the series on Outside the Church There is No Salvation (Youtube).

'For me these cases exist as a possibility but they can never be known. So they can never be exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

'For you they are exceptions and so here the confusion arises.

'If they are exceptions then it would mean that we personally know these cases.Otherwise how could they be exceptions to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.

'This was the error of the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits there.'

Robert said 'If you believe it does, then you are required to find a statement in which Vatican II clearly says: "The doctrine EENS was taught before in the Catholic Church, but we declare it was in error, and we reject that doctrine." I'm not interested in your interpretation of EENS, or your interpretation of Vatican II's statements that you think are denying EENS. Unless you have a clear and unambiguous statement from Vatican II as I described above, you don't have a case.'

Lionel:
'Here Vatican Council II is in agreement with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known to Church Councils, popes and saints.

Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. -Ad Gentes 7.

Ad Gentes 7 is also mentioned in the Catechism of the Catholic Church under the title Outside the Church No Salvation (CCC 846)

In a series of talks on the subject No Salvation Outside the Church available on Youtube Robert Sungenis has said that every one needs to enter the Church except for those in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. Except for these cases? Do we know any of these cases in 2013? Does any Magisterial text say that we know any of these cases ? Why do they have to be mentioned as exceptions?

Robert clarifies,'Let me say it again. I used "exception" in the sense of someone, because of circumstances that prohibit them, of not being able to go through the normal means to receive salvation and/or membership in the Catholic Church.

'I used "exception" in the sense of someone, because of circumstances that prohibit them, of not being able to go through the normal means to receive salvation and/or membership in the Catholic Church.' So this is a possibility. Someone in such a case could be saved. We agree.

'However in my last e-mail perhaps I mentioned that these cases would only be known to God. They are invisible for us and visible only to God.Since they are personally not known to us, can they be exceptions to the dogma on salvation and the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney ?

'So your mentioning it would be irrelevant to the dogma. The dogma cannot have exceptions.

'So on the issue of other religions and ecumenism there is no rational basis for any ambiguity and yet we see so much of it.

Robert responded 'I gave you a rational basis above, but you simply ignored it in this summation of my view.'

Robert added. 'I used "exception" in the sense of someone, because of circumstances that prohibit them, of not being able to go through the normal means to receive salvation and/or membership in the Catholic Church.

Lionel:
This cannot be a rational basis since if there is an exception it would mean these cases now dead and saved in Heaven are visible to you. This would be irrational. We cannot see the dead. So how could this be a rational basis for saying there are exceptions ?

I was hoping that you would answer the questions I asked you in my last e-mail so that I could quote you. Over the years I have been sending you material on this subject hoping you would write on it.

Yesterday I mentioned ( in my e-mail) :
'We agree that:
1. We cannot see the dead in Heaven.

2.We agree that we do not know any one saved with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance in 2013.

These are universal truths. One does not have to be a Catholic and it is understood.

This is a given. Irrespective of ones ideology etc.

In the Introduction to Dominus Iesus the church refers to the words defacto and de jure(in principle). So Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was aware of this way of thinking when approving the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Without using the defacto and dejure reasoning on this issue there will be a lot of confusion.

For instance Ad Gentes 7 itself would be confusing and contradictory to the Principle of Non Contradiction. It would be saying all need baptism for salvation but some people (defacto) also do not need the baptism of water for salvation'.

'Sorry, Lionel, I don't agree with your logic here',. said Robert Sungenis,' You are cleverly trying to find a circuitous way to make baptism absolute, but it is a specious logic all your own and not one the Church has ever used. The Church simply has no official and dogmatic statement that makes water baptism absolute. '

Lionel:
If you use the defacto-dejure reasoning mentioned in Dominus Iesus then baptism is 'absolute' only defacto, in the present times.While there could be a person in principle( dejure) who is saved without the baptism of water.

Similarly when CCC 1257 says the Church 'knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water', it means defacto the church knows of ....'. While CCC 1257 also says 'God is not limited to the Sacraments', meaning in principle(de jure) a person could be saved without the Sacraments.

Without the defacto-dejure analysis your interpretation of CCC 1257 on The Necessity of Baptism would contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction.

Robert:
'Your appeal to Ad gentes is disingenuous and out of context. Here is paragraph 7:

7. This missionary activity derives its reason from the will of God, "who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, Himself a man, Jesus Christ, who gave Himself as a ransom for all" (1 Tim. 2:45), "neither is there salvation in any other" (Acts 4:12). Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body.

For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door.

RS: If this was all Ad gentes 7 said, you might have a stronger argument, but it continues with these words:

"Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."(17) '

Lionel:
'Correct. This paragraph does not contradict the earlier one you cited.

We do not know (defacto) any one in 2013 who was aware or not aware and was saved or not saved. If there was a case of someone in invincible ignorance saved we would not know who he is in the present times. This would be known only to God. These cases are invisible for us.So this paragraph does not contradict AG 7 quoted above.

On the other hand if you did not use the visible-invisible reasoning, you would be contradicting the Principle of Non Contradiction in your interpretation of AG 7, CCC 1257 etc. You would be saying defacto every one needs Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation and defacto there could be a known case, visible to us in 2013, who does not need faith and baptism for salvation.This is also the common error being made today'.

Robert Sungenis:
'RS: The all important clause "who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary," was put there in accord with all the other instances in Catholic theology in which it is said that those who are unaware of the requirement of baptism and submission to the Church are not deprived of salvation due to that ignorance.'

Lionel:
'Those who are unaware can be saved we agree here.
Those who are unaware and who are saved are personally visible or invisible to us?
This was the question I asked you earlier.
If you say that they are visible to us then this passage contradicts the earlier passage of AG 7'.

Robert Sungenis:
Then Ad gentes continues with even more qualification:

"Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6), yet a necessity lies upon the Church (1 Cor. 9:16), and at the same time a sacred duty, to preach the Gospel. And hence missionary activity today as always retains its power and necessity."

'RS: Ad gentes deliberately leaves out the word "baptism" in the clause "those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him." It only requires faith, and it is for a specific group, the "inculpably ignorant" or what we call the "invincibly ignorant."

Conversely, in your below sentence you say "Let me put it this way. Ad gentes 7 indicates all need faith and baptism for salvation." But you left out the qualification of Ad gentes 7 in regards to the inculpably ignorant.'

Lionel:
'Good point!

All need faith and baptism for salvation (AG 7) and those who are saved in inculpable ignorance(AG 7) are invisible to us.You do not know any such case in PA(Harrisburg,Pennsylavania).So how can someone whom you do not know, whom you cannot see be an exception ?

So if AG 7(Inculpable ignorance) is invisible it is irrelevant to AG 7 saying all need faith and baptism for salvation.

If AG 7 (inculpable ignorance) was visible to you, if you could see the dead- saved; if you personally knew any such case, then AG 7 would contradict itself.

In a sense we are back to your original article on Cardinal Walter Kaspar(The Bellarmine Report) and two ways of interpreting Vatican Council II.

For Cardinal Walter Kaspar Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance) is visible and so is an exception to Ad Gentes 7 and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.He writes off the dogma. This is irrational and contradicting the Principle of Non Contradiction.' I accept an invisible-to- us baptism of desire etc and reject a visible-to-us baptism of desire and being known invincible ignorance cases. Cardinal Kaspar and Robert Sungenis accept a visible to us baptism of desire.For them these cases are explicit. For me they are implicit.For me the magisterial documents mention implicit desire etc and assume that we will interpret them rationally.In Sungenis and Kaspar we have a traditionalist and liberal making the same factual and objective error of being able to see the dead on earth.They then base their theology on this error and assume that this is Catholic doctrine.
-Lionel Andrades
(First Saturday)

Robert A. Sungenis (born 1955) is an American Catholic apologist. He is the founder of The Bellarmine Report, renamed from the Bellarmine Theological Forum in 2011. He is the president of CAI Publishing, Inc. Sungenis is known for his apologetic works critiquing the Protestant doctrines of sola fide and sola scriptura.(Facebook)

Lionel,

Unless Bob can "name some names," I don't think that you are being fair to him.

Robert Sungenis crisis
The American apologist Robert Sungenis probably realizes that he has to review his understanding of Catholic teaching.Especially on the issue of Vatican Council II, salvation and other religions there are new facts he has to deal with.

In the past, the traditionalist Sungenis, always assumed Vatican Council II was a break with the past, especially the traditional teaching on other religions, Christian communities and churches.

While there was a whole body of Catholic traditional literature which affirmed his faith, and told him that non Catholic religions, including Christian communities and churches, were not paths to salvation, Vatican Council II for Sungenis was ambiguous.

For him there were sections of the Council which were heretical and could not be the teaching of the Holy Spirit ,which guides the Church not to make error.

He thought there were two interpretations of Vatican Council II, one true and the other false or confusing.

It is with the false and confusing interpretation that there should be a new crisis, a personal review of what he formerly took for granted.

Now he is being asked to accept that Vatican Council II is in agreement with St.Robert Bellarmine, for whom he has a special affection.This is the great Jesuit saint who taught the literal interpretation of the dogma extra eccclesiam nulla salus, now affirmed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846,845.

Can Robert Sungenis accept that Vatican Council II is as' rigorist' as the interpretation of St.Robert Bellarmine and the other Jesuit, Fr.Leonard Feeney?Could Vatican Council II be in agreement with Pope Francis when he said outside the Church one cannot find Jesus?

St.Robert Bellarmine accepted being saved in invincible ignorance and implicit desire but did not claim that these cases were visible to us. He knew that these persons saved were invisible for us humans and so not an exception to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.This is Change Number 1 which Robert Sungenis has to make.Presently he assumes like Cardinal Richard Cushing,former Archbishop of Boston, and the Jesuits at that time, that these cases are visible to us and so are exceptions to Tradition.

Once he makes this correction he will see through other inconsistencies in his interpretation of the Council.

For example:

1. When Lumen Gentium 14 and Ad Gentes 7 says those who know about Jesus and the Church and who still do not enter,are on the way to Hell, it does not contradict Ad Gentes 7 which also states 'all' need 'faith and baptism' for salvation.There is no contradiction since we do not know any such case, of 'those who know, yet...' .So it cannot be an exception to all needing faith and baptism for salvation in 2013.If these cases were visible they would be exceptions.

2.Similarly we do not know any person personally, who is saved with 'elements of sanctification'(LG , 'imperfect communion with the Church'(UR), being a 'good and holy' non Catholic (NA), 'seeds of the word' etc.So these cases cannot be exceptions to all needing faith and baptism for salvation(AG 7).Neither are they exceptions to the thrice defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.They are irrelevant to Fr.Leonard Feeney's literal interpretation of the dogma.

So there are no exceptions or contradictions in Vatican Council II to AG 7,which has been placed in the Catechism under the title Outside the Church No Salvation.

Robert Sungenis has to clarify these points.Otherwise he could be implying that we can personally see the deceased saved, who are on earth, and are exceptions to AG 7.In other words Vatican Council II contradicts itself or has made a mistake.

This is an objective ,factual error.The dead are not visible to us.

It is with this error that he is interpreting Vatican Council II, like just about every one else( including other apologists) as being anti-Bellarmine.-L.A
(written at the tomb of St.Robert Bellarmine, Rome).

Why not invite Bob here?

He knows about this forum I have sent him the link.

Richard Cushing Error runs through Sungenis' talks

"You don't receive the water you can't be saved? Is that what Jesus is saying? No." says Robert Sungenis (0.58 Pt4 of 6: Is There Salvation Outside of the Church?- Sungenis https://youtu.be/45foZDKg7PI )

This is confusion.Jesus is saying, for Robert Sungenis, that every one in 2013 does not need to receive the baptism of water for salvation? Defacto every one in the present times does!(John 3:5).There are no known exceptions. Sungenis does not know a single person who is an exception. He cannot name any exception in the present times.

(0.09) 'Or the desire of'. Yes a person can be saved with implicit desire but since we do not know these cases in the present times, this is irrelevant to the dogma outside the church there is no salvation or the need for the baptism of water for all (John 3.5,Mark 16:16).

'So that puts a whole different twist on it, doesn't it ?' (2.25) says Robert Sungenis. No it does not! It puts a whole different twist on it only if implicit desire is explicit for us humans.Since implicit desire is known only to God it is not an exception to the dogma on salvation.This is ambiguity, uncalled for.

"We are into a whole new realm here" (3:37). Yes he is about to assume that implicit desire is explicit and so is an exception to the dogma and thus there is a new doctrine.A whole new realm.

"Enter a new term into the formula" (3:50). Exactly! A new term into the formula and one which is irrational.Explicit- implicit desire is a new term and idea.An American one, from Boston.

(5:27) If one is justified or saved it is only known to God. So how is this relevant to the dogma?

(7.17) The Council of Trent on that word desire. The Council of Trent only mentions the possibility of a person being saved with implcit desire. It does not state that these cases are visible to us or that they are relevant or an exception to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.

(7.40) Pope Pius IX never said that implicit desire was explicit for us and so an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

It is because of this error of Cardinal Richard Cushing that Robert Sungenis and so many apologists (Patrick Madrid etc) assume that Vatican Council II is a break with the past and contradicts the traditional teaching on other religions and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

There is no anbiguity in the Council but this ambiguity is created, perhaps unintentionally by liberals and traditionalists when they assume that there is visible implicit desire, that we can actually see the dead saved with implicit desire who are exceptions to the dogma on salvation.
This is the false charge made against Fr.Leonard Feeney. How could the Jesuit priest from Boston be faulted for not denying that there are no exceptions to the dogma and that implicit desire and invincible ignorance are not exceptions ?

The Letter of the Holy Office nor Vatican Council II state that implicit desire is visible to us in the present times or is an exception to the traditional teaching on salvation.This is a common error supported by the media.
-Lionel Andrades

Lionel,

If Bob is, indeed, claiming as de fide that there are souls in Paradise, since the promulgation of the Gospel, who lack the character of sacramental Baptism, then he is wrong. We know this to be so because there are followers of Father Feeney who are receiving the Sacrament of Confirmation from a Roman Catholic diocesan bishop who is in good standing with Rome:

http://www.saintbenedict.com/

If you are representing Bob correctly, then a diocesan bishop is administering the Sacraments to a group of heretics.

Since Robert Sungenis assumes Fr.Leonard Feeney was in heresy and not Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Catechism(1257 etc) and Vatican Council II (LG 16 vs AG 7) contradict themself

Since Robert Sungenis assumes Fr.Leonard Feeney was in heresy and not Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1257 etc) and Vatican Council II (LG 16 vs AG 7) contradict themself.A false premise is used in the interpretation.

If the Archbsihop of Boston was in heresy Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church become traditional.Now they are a break with the past, since Cushingism says the dead saved in invincible ignorance etc, are physically visible to us, personally known to us as if we could shake hands with them.For Cushingites these cases are exceptions to the dogma on salvation and the Syllabus of Errors.

For Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Archbshop of Boston there were defacto known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which indicated, defacto, that all need to convert into the Church for salvation.The Archbishop of Boston never used a defacto-dejure analysis. It was always an irrational defacto-defacto analysis.

Pope Benedict XVI was aware of the defacto-dejure analysis but politically he came across as a Cushingite, to avoid tension.

For some 19 years the excommunication on Fr.Leonard Feeney was maintained and during that time Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits in Boston, were active at Vatican Council II, trying to spread their errors based on the irrationality of the dead being visible to us.

Fr.Leonard Feeney was never in heresy.He could not be in heresy for saying the same thing as the Church Fathers, the Church Councils, the popes in the ordinary magisterium, the saints and now Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
-Lionel Andrades

Friday, July 15, 2011
OUR POPE IS A CUSHINGITEhttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2011/07/our-pope-is-cushingite.html#links

Wednesday, May 18, 2011
THE HOLY FATHER POPE BENEDICT XVI IS A CUSHINGITEhttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2011/05/holy-father-pope-benedict-xvi-is.html#links

Friday, February 22, 2013
MAJOR THEOLOGICAL ERROR WILL MARK THE PONTIFICATE OF POPE BENEDICT XVIhttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/02/major-theological-error-will-mark.html#links

Thursday, May 9, 2013
Robert Sungenis can help the SSPX with the canonical status issuehttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/05/robert-sungenis-can-help-sspx-with.html#links

Lionel,

I think that you are misrepresenting Bob. If he thinks that Father Feeney had heretical ideas, what did Father Feeney receive a public Mass of Christian burial from his bishop? Why are many of his followers in full communion with Rome today?

He assumes that invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and so Fr.Leonard Feeney was wrong.

Have you pointed out Paragraph 51 in Lumen Gentium to him? What does he have to say about that?

I sent him the link to this forum.

Send him the text from Lumen Gentium, 51:

51. This Sacred Council accepts with great devotion this venerable faith of our ancestors regarding this vital fellowship with our brethren who are in heavenly glory or who having died are still being purified; and it proposes again the decrees of the Second Council of Nicea,(20*) the Council of Florence (21*) and the Council of Trent.(22*) And at the same time, in conformity with our own pastoral interests, we urge all concerned, if any abuses, excesses or defects have crept in here or there, to do what is in their power to remove or correct them, and to restore all things to a fuller praise of Christ and of God. Let them therefore teach the faithful that the authentic cult of the saints consists not so much in the multiplying of external acts, but rather in the greater intensity of our love, whereby, for our own greater good and that of the whole Church, we seek from the saints "example in their way of life, fellowship in their communion, and aid by their intercession."(23*) On the other hand, let them teach the faithful that our communion with those in heaven, provided that it is understood in the fuller light of faith according to its genuine nature, in no way weakens, but conversely, more thoroughly enriches the latreutic worship we give to God the Father, through Christ, in the Spirit.(24*)

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

Since the Council of Florence declared in Cantate Domino that everyone must end their lives in "the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church", there can be no exceptions, visible or otherwise.

Could you phone him?

If I had his number, I would not call him. What would be the point? He can read, and if he wants to visit this forum, he can. Since he has responded to you, I suggest that you ask him about LG, 51.

Well, if that is the case, then Bob is wrong. So sad. However, a trillion lies do not change one immutable truth:

It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

Even the 1949 Holy Office letter acknowledged this:

Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.

Perhaps in the End only the brothers and sisters of the Saint Benedict Centers will be the remnant who profess the One True Faith. I count myself privileged to be numbered among that small group of true Catholic believers.

As for you and Bob, I think that you are spending too much time trying to split "theological hairs." One can never know (at least in this life) if one were truly "invincibly ignorant" or not, as was declared at the First Vatican Council:

13. So it comes about that, like a standard lifted up for the nations, she both invites to herself those who have not yet believed, and likewise assures her sons and daughters that the faith they profess rests on the firmest of foundations.

14. To this witness is added the effective help of power from on high. For, the kind Lord stirs up those who go astray and helps them by his grace so that they may come to the knowledge of the truth; and also confirms by his grace those whom he has translated into his admirable light, so that they may persevere in this light, not abandoning them unless he is first abandoned.

Such applies to Protestants and the Orthodox who are baptized in their infancies. They are in a state of grace, and upon reaching the Age of Reason, they are all, without exception, given the graces to enter formally and canonically into the One True Church. Many of them do not, of course, do this, but some do, which is proof of the Holy Spirit's guidance manifesting itself visibly in our World. But, let's consider LG 16 again:

Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.

How could you, Bob, me, or anyone else ever know that what some non-Catholic does not know was due to "no fault of his/her own", especially, given the decree of the First Vatican Council of the Holy Spirit's "effective help of power from on high"? It seems that the "divine light and grace" which Pope Pius IX spoke of in Quanto conficiamur is, in fact, the grace to become fully Catholic! Regardless, however, the fact that the Second Vatican Council acknowledged "the decrees of the Second Council of Nicea, the Council of Florence and the Council of Trent" means that all human beings, without exception, must end their lives "in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church" if they wish to "have a share in life eternal".

We leave it to the Righteous Judge to sort the "wheat from the chaff"; until that Day, we will continue to proclaim "from the housetops":

“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Those who will listen will listen; those who don't, well, will not.

May 20, 2013
Robert Sungenis responds : but still without any apologetics.

I have received this response from the apologist Robert Sungenis. I am posting it unedited.

Lionel,
Here is my response. You can post this, and this only.
To whom it may concern: Lionel Andrades, in my opinion, is dishonest and I want nothing to do with him. When he contacted me by email several weeks ago and began corresponding with me about the Church's doctrine of Extra Ecclesium Nulla Salus [EENS], I told him that my dialogue with him was private and that I did not give him permission to post any of it, or even his opinions about it. Mr. Andrades ignored my request, and continues to do so even though I have reminded him of his sin, which includes detraction, false accusations, and slander. In my opinion, Mr. Andrades has not only distorted my teachings and beliefs on the Church's doctrine of EENS, he is also ignorant of the Church's true teaching. Having appointed himself as the sole arbiter of the Church's teaching, Mr. Andrades parades around the Internet, using his own views as the standard of judgment, and condemns and publicizes the condemnation of anyone who deviates from his own views. I must say that, in examining Mr. Andrades' blog, many other people have seen his sin of detraction for what it really is, and no one seems interested in what he has to say, since, the last time I looked, he has received no responses to his diatribes. The only response that will be listed (if Mr. Andrades wants to have the least semblance of honesty) is the one I am writing presently. In my opinion, it is quite ironic that Mr. Andrades parades around the Internet questioning everyone's salvation, yet it appears that he has a log in his own eye that he has never removed. Hence, it is he who should be examining whether he himself is still saved, since the sins of dishonesty and detraction are mortal. I would implore everyone who reads this to pray for the soul of Lionel Andrades.
Robert Sungenis
May 19, 2013
Copy to Fr. Brian Harrison

____________________________________________

Lionel:
Before I posted the original report about Sungenis on the First Saturday of this month I e-mailed him and asked him to make any clarification he wanted.He did not respond.So I went ahead and posted the report on my blog.
In earlier correspondence with me he mentioned that I should consult him before posting any thing. So he knew that the correspondence was not private. I also mentioned in our correspondence that I had asked him questions ( to which he did not respond) with the intention of quoting him. I have done this in the past too but the reports about him in the past were positive.This one was not.I have sent him the e-mail copies of what I mention here i.e (1)informing him asking him for clarifications, (2) his mentioning that before quoting him I should consult him and (3) my mentioning that I want to quote.

He had no response apologetically to the initial copy and neither does he have any now, after so many reports are written, with his apologetics being the subject.-L.A

Lionel,

Listen to Bob. If he wanted his dialogue with you to be private, well, dammit Lionel, you should have kept it private!!! Period!!!! End of story.

Don't fall for his private story.
Notice he has no apologetics but is calling for prayers.
He is careful not to get into apologetics since he doesn't know how to handle this one.
What can he say to the comment, 'we cannot see the dead' ?.

May 22, 2013
Notice, he has no apologetics but is calling for prayers
Notice he is careful not to get into apologetics, since he doesn't know how to handle this one.
What can he say to the comment 'we cannot see the dead?'.Nothing! There is no apologetics.
I told Robert Sungenis in our correspondence, which was not private, that I am no authority on this issue ( and neither is any one else with their common place error) but of one thing I am dead- sure, it is, we cannot see dead.
That we cannot see the dead is not a personal view it is a universal understanding.
So how can he respond if the issue is not theology.It is a mistaken ' fact' which influences his theology.
When he admits we cannot see the dead his theology will be rational.
If Fr.Brian Harrison and Robert Sungenis were asked if they can see the dead they would respond, "No".
Then the follow up question for them is : how can they say that being saved in invincible ignorance and implicit desire are exceptions to all needing 'faith and baptism' for salvation?
Those who are saved in invincible ignorance and implicit desire are dead for us.They cannot be seen.
Then Fr.Harrison and Sungenis would say/imply that the Church made a mistake ( this is what the Church teaches!).
But where is the text in which the Church says that the dead are visible for us ?
This has to be implied-wrongly!
I would say that he has no apologetics and is calling for prayers.Appropriately.-Lionel Andrades

Don,
We have got to help them.
We just can't leave them in their ignorance.
You and I understand the mistake they are making.
Gradually it will ' sink in' with them. We have to work at it patiently.
Since what we are saying is not a new theology or theory or a personal view.It is observing that we all share a universal understanding, that in general, the dead cannot be seen with the visible eye.
Many people have realized this now and did not know this before.
I think of the small group of Mother Teresa Sisters in Rome who confronted the professors at the Gregorian University, Rome on this issue.They will have helped those Catholic professors think about this.
Similarly it is not the fault of Bob to think the way he does about the exceptions to the dogma. I made the same mistake once upon a time and now I have corrected myself.