What, pray tell, is a(n) "Independent Catholic?" Independent of WHAT?

Every revelation was given to men, but who are the men to understand it? We can only have a notion with what is the truth.

What is the truth?
In Dominus Iesus Cardinal Ratzinger chose the irrational inference and rejected the traditional dogma on salvation
http://eucharistandmission....

So, then, this passage from the Gospels is meaningless?

"Then Jesus said to those Jews, who believed him: If you continue in my word, you shall be my disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:31-32)

Perhaps God Incarnate should rather have said "And you shall have a notion of the truth, and that notion shall make you free — sort of."

By the way, would you be so kind as to tell us what your religion is? I.e., your church, denomination, affiliation, etc.

Could you please first comment on this link ? It is relevant to your apostolate and also refers to the truth.
In Dominus Iesus Cardinal Ratzinger chose the irrational inference and rejected the traditional dogma on salvation
http://eucharistandmission.blo...

Mr. Andrades: You have asked me to comment on the link. The link was not properly supplied, but I found the posting on your blog.

While we take exception to some of the contents of Redemptoris Missio, Dominus Iesus, and, especially, the Marchetti-Selvaggiani Letter based on the perennial magisterium of the Church, I do not accept your line of argumentation, which accuses the authors of those documents of "assuming the dead now in Heaven are physically visible to us." This is facile reasoning. It would also set up a straw man for our opponents to knock down quite easily.

Thank you for replying.

'This is facile reasoning. It would also set up a straw man for our opponents to knock down quite easily.'
Is this not the reasoning you use to reject Vatican Council II ? Lumen Gentium 16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance) is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. In other words LG 16 is saying all do not need to enter the Church with the baptism of water. So all do not need to enter the Church in 2014 and there are some exceptions. They are saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water.And most important of all, they are known and visible to be explicit exceptions.
They would have to be known and visible for them to be exceptions. Invisible cases cannot be exceptions.This is what you infer when you do not clarify your position on LG 16 being exceptions to the dogma.
__________________________________
Theologically over the years you have said that there are no exceptions.However you have not said that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance have nothing to do with extra ecclesiam nulla salus.They are not exceptions in themself
Since invisible for us cases cannot be defacto exceptions to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney on the dogma.
This was 'facile reasoning' ? And upon this objective error the Letter of the Holy Office opposed Fr.Leonard Feeney and the then St.Benedict Center.
This was an objective simple error and had nothing to do with theology.It is not part of the apologetics of St.Benedict Center.

No, my reasoning is not your reasoning. No, I do not "reject" Vatican II. I do believe that a Pope will eventually have to do with the documents of that Council what Monsignor Brunero Gherardini has called for.

Our last exchange got nowhere. This one is getting there fast, too. In all truth and charity, I find your arguments unconvincing. Maybe you should just accept that and move on.

Brother Andre Marie are you saying that Lumen Gentium 16 is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? Vatican Council II here does not contradict the traditional interpretation of the dogma?

I'm saying that it is highly ambiguous. It can be read in different ways. I'm saying that, ultimately, it is up to the Holy Father's infallible magisterium to clarify this, and many other such ambiguities in the Council, either by correcting them or by showing how they are in line with tradition. As Msgr. Gherardini has said, the "hermeneutic of continuity" must be proved, not simply posited.

So you infer that LG 16 is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is how Mons.Gherardini would interpret it.

Brother Andre Marie,
John Martigioni, the American apologist, says zero cases of something cannot be exceptions ( he is not referring to the baptism of desire followed by the baptism of water not being an exception to the dogma on salvation. This is another point.) Would you agree with him ? Invisible cases of something cannot be exceptions ?

How can zero cases of something be considered exceptions ?- John Martigioni
http://eucharistandmission....

Implicit intention, invincible ignorance and a good conscience (LG 16) in Vatican Council II do not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus –John Martigioni
http://eucharistandmission....

Mr. Andrades, you are once again putting words in my mouth. If I say that a document is "ambiguous," and explicitly draw out the meaning of that word, namely, that it admits of one or more interpretations, then how can you say that I infer one specific meaning and continue your polemic based on that?

Since you have misrepresented my own view, I must assume that your gratuitous assertion regarding Monsignor Gherardini's position is equally unreliable.

I've answered several of your questions. Now kindly answer mine, please.

I surmise that the following the metaphysical principle you employ when reasoning on this issue:

"A proposition that logically opposes a dogma of the faith does not really oppose it if the proposition itself cannot be empirically verified by our external senses."

Is it?

Rather than put words in your mouth, or principles in your mind, I am asking you to affirm or deny that this principle is something you hold to be valid. If it is not, then I ask you to tell me what the metaphysical principle is from which you draw your conclusions on this issue of baptism of desire and invincible ignorance not being contradictions of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

You have not said that LG 16 is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. I am asking you something specific and not about Vatican Council II in general. This would also be the irrational position of the great Mons.Gherardini .
Neither have you agreed with John Martigioni's comment.
On Mons.Gherardini:
Without the false premise, the visible- dead premise, the Decree on Ecumenism in Vatican Council II does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus
http://eucharistandmission....

"A proposition that logically opposes a dogma of the faith does not really oppose it if the proposition itself cannot be empirically verified by our external senses."

A proposition ( Lionel:The propostion is that a person saved with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water is physically visible to us on earth and is an exception to the dogma.So it is a specific propostion.) logically opposes a dogma of the faith ( Lionel: Since the proposition infers that these cases are known to our external senses, it refers to an exception to the dogma which says all need the baptism of water for salvation.The baptism of water is visible and repeatable and here we allegedly have a case of someone who is an exception) does not really oppose it ( Lionel:Oppose ? it has nothing to do with the dogma.It could only oppose the traditional teaching if the case was known to our external senses.This is not possible since this person would not be on earth.Invisible cases do not oppose the traditional teaching)if the proposition itself cannot be empirically verified by our external senses."( Lionel: The reality of this proposition( the dead are visible to be exceptions to the dogma) cannot be verified by our external senses.Since the proposition refers to someone dead and we cannot see or know if there is such a person in Heaven saved with the baptism of desire.It is subjective for us and known only to God.How can what is subjective and hypothethical be empirically verified by our external senses? Elementary My Dear Watson, Elementary!)

Are you therefore saying that what I put in bold is the metaphysical principle you employ when reasoning on this issue?

For reference:

"A proposition that logically opposes a dogma of the faith does not really oppose it if the proposition itself cannot be empirically verified by our external senses."

I'm looking for one of two answers: Yes or No.

If the answer is No, then I request that you articulate your own wording of the operative theological principle from which you draw your conclusions.

"A proposition that logically opposes a dogma of the faith does not really oppose it if the proposition itself cannot be empirically verified by our external senses."
Lionel:
I am refering to a specific proposition. Not to any proposition. A proposition may seem logical at one level of reality when it is really irrational.
The baptism of desire may seem a a theoretical possibility and so would logically oppose the dogma but to me it it is not a rational propostion.Since in this particular case it is hypothetical,an idea, accepted subjectively in faith.So it is not a visible exception to the dogma.

the operative theological principle from which you draw your conclusions.
Lionel:
There is no operative theological principle.
Neither is there a standard philosophical principle I am drawing upon.
I am simply making an intellectual, empirical observation. I cannot physically see with my eyes a person saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance.
That's all!
From here if any one wants to create a theology make sure it is rational and real.
If you propose that we can see the dead on earth it is a faulty proposition and not real. If you then postulate that it opposes the dogma it may seem logical to you but it is not real.

PROPOSITION 1

We personally know the dead now saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16), since can we see them, they are they physically visible to us in 2014.Logical conclusion(?) : Since we know of these cases, in real life, they are visible for us, there are known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, or Ad Gentes 7 which states 'all' need 'faith and baptism' for salvation ?

PROPOSITION 2
We personally do not know the dead now saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc,cannot we see them, they are not physically visible to us in 2014.Logical Conclusion: Since we do not know any of these cases, in real life, they are not visible to us, there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, or Ad Gentes 7 which states 'all' need 'faith and baptism' for salvation ?
Which of these two propostions does the St.Benedict Center accept?

"There is no operative theological principle," you say. Moreover, "Neither is there a standard philosophical principle I am drawing upon." Rather, you are drawing upon empirical observation without the benefit of sound philosophical or theological principles.

You have proven my point, namely, that you have introduced an anomalous and inappropriate empiricism into theology. It will convince nobody with a solid theological formation. Moreover, it is bad theology.

I could use your methodology to prove that Lutheran Consubstantiation does not contradict the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation, since the presence of both bread and Christ in the Holy Eucharist is unknown to us, being empirically unverifiable. (Then again, Christ's own presence there, without the substance of bread, is also empirically unverifiable. Hence the merit of Faith.) But supernatural mysteries cannot be so easily dealt with by the "scientific method."

Of the two propositions you lay down, I would accept the second — though I would have to reword it in a more cogent way. But my accepting it does not take us very far in theology, since it relies on empirical observation as its lynchpin. If you reduced it to a logical syllogism, your major premise would likely be atheological, as is your approach in general.

Thanks for your work Brother André. Certainly costs a lot of time to bring theological knowledge for people, willing to argue them, although not always accepted. I'm Catholic - Apostolic Roman Church. But I am a "Indepedent" Catholic.