Wednesday, November 26, 2014

IN SLOVAKIA, APPARITION OF MARY ADDRESSED HOW ILLNESS IS HEALED AND HOW ONE ATTAINS PEACE

At Litmanová, Slovakia, where the Blessed Mother appeared between August 1990 and August 1995, her words reputedly included insight, among other matters, on how to maintain peace and maintain health.
The messages were as brief and edifying as they are fascinating.
"My dear children, I ask you again, change your lives and sacrifice them fully to God," she intoned, at one juncture. "Because only in this way your lives may become eternal. Oh, my children, learn to say this: 'Your Sacred Will be done' everywhere and in everything because the eternal peace is hidden in You.' Pray this until you understand that peace is the core of every soul."
It is a powerful remark -- indicating that it's when we get rid of the facades of life and traces of worldliness that we reach that long-sought goal so many have of inner tranquility.
During the apparitions to two young women, Iveta Korĉá and Katka Česelková (12 and 13 years of age, at the time of the first experiences), the Blessed Mother did not use human language but somehow spoke in a way that the girls (mainly Ivetka, who received the majority of messages) could understand and later relate to onlookers who recorded them.
"My dear children," said Mary (mainly appearing in white dress and blue mantle), "I am glad that I can be here with you. Please, go and calm down with my Son. This world fills you up with restlessness and noise and then you forget how to be quiet and humble before God. Then you do not feel what Jesus wants to do inside you. And you do not feel what your prayer wants to do inside you. When you feel weak, put all your weakness into my heart, so that God may manifest His powers."
 zvětšený obrázek... Speaking of Jesus and those who sought healing at the site -- where there is miraculous water -- the Virgin told Ivetka to "put diseases in His wounds. And then Jesus will be able to do inside her whatever He wants." That was apparently after a request made for an ailing boy. His disease, said Mary, "shall serve to spiritually cure people and he should not be afraid. God's Mercy is on him."
There is a reason some are sick, she told the seer, a reason for them bearing "a cross." Referring to one infirm man, the Blessed Mother remarked in a similar fashion that "he should not be so sad because he will set many souls free through his disease, his pain." Referring to an ill boy (it's not apparent if this was the same one), she said prayers should be directed to the saint assigned to him at Baptism. A man with severe cancer was told to pick one of the Apostles and pray to that saint in a special way.
"To cure both body and mental diseases it is necessary to pray the entire Rosary (Joyful, Sorrowful, and Glorious) every day, to fast every Wednesday and Friday, and to drink the water from the spring on the mountain," she said about sick people brought to her attention during the apparitions. "Sin is a cause of every disease." ("A" cause, not "the" cause.)
"The world is sick because it is filled with abomination and dirt but you should not want to think in the way the world thinks, nor want to long for the things the world longs for."
"I love you very much and I deeply care about the purity of your hearts," added the Blessed Mother.
Do not let the world, said Mary, make you insincere.
The mission of every person, advised the Virgin, in these approbated appearances, involves love "because life is intended for this and only love can make your lives full."
"These times are like a thief of peace. Please, tell God: 'I love and therefore, I am sorry. I love and therefore, I forgive. I love and this is my peace." Speaking directly to God -- conversationally -- was a key, Mary told Ivetka.
"The most important thing is that you maintain peace inside yourselves," said Mary. "Please, open your heart to my words. I accept you as you are."
[resources: Spirit Daily's New Bookstore and New:
 

Steve Speray makes the same error as the CMRI and MHFM



Steven Speray is unable to answer the following two questions(A and B).Since he too had assumed that the baptism of desire is visible and known to us and that Church documents had mentioned this.This is a common error among Catholics.
 
A.You do agree that there is no precedent before 1949 when the Church says that the baptism of desire refers to visible in the flesh cases and they are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus?
B.Mystici Corporis does not make this claim as it was wrongly inferred to in the Letter of the Holy Office?

 
Here is a continuation of the discussion with Steve Speray, with my comments.
Nov.26,2014
 
Lionel:

To assume that the baptism of desire and blood refer to known cases who are saved without the baptism of water is irrational.Since you do not know any such case.
Steven:No it's not. We know who is saved by Baptism of Blood and I have written in my books how it doesn't contradict Pope Eugene IV.
Lionel:

Yes it does not contradict Pope Eugene IV in Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441.
However you cannot say someone is going to be a martyr in 2014 and so does not need the baptism of water.You would not know.
_______________________________________________


Lionel:We can assume that someone saved as a martyr has been saved without the baptism of water but we do not really know. The saints Including St.Francis Xavier tell us that God has sent people back to earth only to be baptised with water.They then died and went back to God.
SPERAY: Oh yes you can know. When the Church declares and has a mass under his name for doing. It's a guaranteed.

Lionel :We cannot physically see them.We cannot meet them. St.Francis of Assisi is a saint .Padre Pio is declared a saint by the Church and we accept this in faith but we cannot see them with our eyes or meet them in 2014.
_____________________________________________
 
How can what is unknown be relevant or an exception to the traditional dogmatic teaching on salvation?
Steven: The Traditional dogmatic teaching on salvation is that God can save a person without Water in extraordinary cases,

Lionel:
1.And how can these 'extraordinary cases' be exceptions to Cantate Dominio, or Vatican Council II (AG 7) this year when we do not know any case.
2. The de fide part of the dogma is that every one needs to enter the Church for salvation.No part of the dogmatic text says God can save a person without water in extraordinary cases.
_____________________________________________


Lionel:The text of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus defined by three Church Councils does not state this. Neither do the popes and saints.

SPERAY: Doesn't say otherwise either. Florence implied it though.

Lionel:
'Doesn't say otherwise either'?
It says all need to enter the Church for salvation, all need to be a member of the Church in the external forum. I thought you agreed on this.
Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441 was clear to the popes, saints and numerous Catholics.For them there were no exceptions implied.
I also asked you earlier to quote me the text where it implied this.It would be an education for me.
_____________________________________________


Steven:and you reject that universal and ordinary teaching of the Church.
Lionel:

1.I affirm all need to enter the Church with no exceptions for salvation (Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441, Vatican Council II (AG 7) etc.
2. I affirm implicit- for- us LG 16,LG 8, UR 3, NA 2, AG 11,LG 8 etc.
This is the ordinary and traditional teaching of the Catholic Church in accord with Vatican Council II.
1.You instead reject (1) since there are known exceptions for you. This is heresy and irrationality.
2. You affirm an explicit for us LG 16,LG 8 etc which is a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II (AG 7). In (2) it is invisible and implicit for me but visible and explicit for you.You can see the dead who are now in Heaven.
For you AG 7 would contradict LG 16,LG 8 etc. Your interpretation of Vatican Council II would also be irrational.
For me AG 7 is not contradicted by invisible for us, posibilities. So LG 16, LG 8 etc refer to possibilities accepted in principle but not defacto, objectively known in the present times to be exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So AG 7 does not contradict LG 16 etc.
Please note that this is the same error made by the sedevacantists
CMRI and MHFM.
 
You do agree that there is no precedent before 1949 when the
Church says that the baptism of desire refers to visible in the flesh
cases and they are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra
ecclesiam nulla salus?
Mystici Corporis does not make this claim as it was wrongly inferred to in the Letter of the Holy Office?
_________________________________________________________________
Lionel:
I think I have dealt with the following.However let me know if there is any thing still not clear.
The baptism of desire is subjective and the baptism of water is objective. We cannot administer or see the baptism of desire. We can see the baptism of water being given and it can be repeated. The same with Catholic Faith. We can proclaim it, recite or check it. It is objective.
So what is subjective cannot be an objective exception to all objectively needing the baptism of water in 2014 for salvation.
 
_______________________________________________
 
Lionel:
Yes it does not contradict Pope Eugene IV in Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441.

SPERAY: Baptism of Blood concerns non-baptized persons wanting to be united to Christ and the Church but died for the sake of Christ without being baptized.
 
Lionel:
O.K and you do not know any such case today who does not need the baptism of water for salvation. So why mention it?
_________________________________________
 
 Cantate Domino refers to those didn't remain in the Church but who shed their blood for Christ. It's true, of course, since you can't be saved by shedding your blood for Christ but refused to be a member of Christ's Church. THAT'S THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE TEXT.
Will you concede this point?  

Lionel:
So you have not provided any text from Cantate Dominio which refers to exceptions.Neither do you personally know of any exceptions today to Cantate Dominio. What more is there to say on this point?
_______________________________________________
Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441 was clear to the popes, saints and numerous Catholics.For them there were no exceptions implied.
SPERAY: You can't supply a single text that says or implies it.
 
Lionel:
I am not implying that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma. Those who assume there are exceptions must show us the text in Cantate Dominio.
The text was very clear over the centuries. There were no exceptions mentioned.
_________________________________________
 
Steve:
  All the popes post-Trent taught Baptism of Desire, which you have denied by saying, "for salvation, all need to be a member of the Church in the external forum."
 
Lionel:
Yes, since the 'rigorist interpretation' of the dogma is not in conflict with implicit for us baptism of desire. I can affirm the traditional interpretation of the dogma , the Feeneyite version, alongwith the baptism of desire which is a possibility but not a known reality in the present times. So it does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction.
It would seem to contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction for you, since for you the baptism of desire is explicit and visible. So there is a contradiction. This could be your understanding of the baptism of desire in the book you have written. The CMRI and MHFM make the same mistake.


____________________________________________
 
I also asked you earlier to quote me the text where it implied this.It would be an education for me.
SPERAY: The following texts are exactly opposite to your personal teaching that "for salvation, all need to be a member of the Church in the external forum."
The Roman Catechism says adults “are not baptized at once…The delay is not attended the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any foreseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.” (p 179)
 
Lionel:
This is a reference to a hypothtical case which we accept in principle. This  case is not known and visible to us in the present times. So it is not an exception to the traditional intepretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
_________________________________________________
 
“Catechism of St. Pius X” written by Pope St. Pius X:
29 Q: But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A: If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation.

Lionel:
Pope Pius X is referring to a hypothetical case. He does not say that this person is known and visible to us to be an exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma.
_________________________________________________
Canon 1239.2 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law declares, “catechumens who through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as Baptized.”

Lionel:
Yes.
The same as above.
_________________________________________
Canon 737 declares, “Baptism, the gateway and foundation of the Sacraments, actually or at least in desire is necessary for all for salvation….”
 
Lionel:
Yes as a possibility. Yes in principle.Yes hypothetically or in faith.It will also be followed by the baptism of water (AG 7).
No defacto. Defacto every one needs the baptism of water for salvation ( Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441, Vatican Council II (AG 7) .In the present times we do not know any one saved with the baptism of desire etc and without the baptism of water.
__________________________________________
Pope Pius IX wrote in Singulari Quidem, On the Church in Austria Encyclical, March 17, 1856: [17] Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control.
Lionel:
Outside of the Church nobody is saved in the present times (2014) and we do not know any one who could be excused because of ignorance and would be saved without the baptism of water. If there was such a case it would be known only to God.
So once again defacto, in the external forum, in the present times, objectively, there are no exceptions and there cannot be known exceptions for us.
-Lionel Andrades

 October 9
November 25, 2014

This is a common mistake in the Catholic Church. Catholics infer that the baptism of desire is visible for us and that this is the teaching in Church documents http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/this-is-common-mistake-in-catholic.html

http://www.cmri.org/slides/2014-fatima-conference/index.html

Tuesday, November 25, 2014

VATICAN COUNCIL II CAN BE READ ACCORDING TO CUSHINGISM OR FEENEYISM. THE TEXT IS NEUTRAL.

How can I explain to Father Serafino Lanzetta FFI or Maria Guarini, Francesco Colafemmina, Massimo Viglione  or other Italians that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made an objective mistake and this mistake is included in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and used by them in the interpretation of Vatican Council II' The mistake was possibly not known to many of the  bishops and cardinals at Vatican Council II.
1.
EVEN IF THE POPE SAYS IT IS IRRATIONAL
If any one says that all of us humans can see and meet the dead who are now in Heaven, this would be irrational. Whatever ones religion or education or age we can all agree that the dead are not visble and known to us on earth.So if anyone implies they are visible to us it is irrational. Even if the pope said that we can see the dead on earth it would be irrational.
2.
IRRATIONALITY CARRIED OVER INTO VATICAN COUNCIL  II, CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
Yet this irrational position was held by Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits, in Boston in the 1940's.They were active at Vatican Council II (1960-1965).They had still not lifted the excommunication of Fr.Leonard Feeney.

For them there was known salvation outside the Church. In other words those who were saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance were visible in the flesh and so were exceptions to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.

Since they assumed that salvation in Heaven is visible to us on earth they mentioned the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance in Ad Gentes 7 of Vatican Council II. They also had the phrase 'those who know', as contrasted with those in invincible ignorance,included in Lumen Gentium 14.

So in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1257) it is said God is not limited to the sacraments and it is also said that every one needs the Sacrament of baptism for salvation.This is contradictory.The error originates from Boston.So we have confusion in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
3.
INTERPRET CHURCH DOCUMENTS WITH IRRATIONAL CUSHINGISM
OR RATIONAL FEENEYISM
 So a Catholic can interpret Church documents with Cushingism. The
error of Cardinal Cushing and the Jesuits.All references to salvation, according to Cushingism, would be considered visible and known to us, in the present times even though these persons would be in Heaven.

There is a choice. We can reject Cushingism. We can also interpret Church documents without the irrational inference; without the claim of being able to see the dead who are now in Heaven.This is what I call Feeneyism. Feeneyism says there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are not explicit for us and so they do not contradict the tradtional teaching on salvation according to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

So we can interpret Church documents including Vatican Council II by using Cushingism or Feeneyism.
 
4.
P.SERAFINO LANZETTA FFI USE IRRATIONAL CUSHINGISM
Fr.Lanzetta, Maria Guarini and others(SSPX/ Fraternità Sacerdotale San Pio X) in Italy are using Cushingism in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.

For instance, Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance) would refer to persons visible to us and so they are assumed to be known exceptions to all needing to convert into the Church for salvation. So Vatican Council II becomes a break with
the past.

For me Lumen Gentium 16 would refer to persons invisible for us and so they are not known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is Feeneyism.

Please note: I am not using Feeneyism according to the theology of the St.Benedict Centers, the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the religious communities of Fr. Leonard Feeney in the USA. I am not referring to theology.

For me it is simple. Cushingism says we can physically see the dead in Heaven. Feeneyism says we cannot.They are seen and known only to God.So they are irrelevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
For Fr.Serafino Lanzetta and the others(Don PierPaolo Petrucci,District Superior,SSPX ,Italy) Lumen Gentium 8, 'elements of sanctification and truth' would refer to persons visible on earth, who are exceptions to Tradition.This is Cushingism.

For me, these cases are invisible and so do not contradict the interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, as it was known throughout the centuries.Since they are invisible for me I am looking at it rationally.I am using Feeneyism.

For Fr.Serafino Lanzetta UR 3 'imperfect communion' with the Church would refer to non Catholics, Protestants etc who are saved outside the Church and who are visible to us in the present times. This is Cushingism with the visible -dead theory.

For me these cases are not known to us in the present times to be an exception to the dogma. Also the text of Vatican Council II does not state that these persons are saved without the baptism of water.This is looing at Vatican Council II traditionally. I am not using an irrational interpretation. This is Feeneyism for me.

A person could be saved in invincible ignorance, imperfect communion with the Church, a ray of the Truth (NA 2) , elements of sanctification and truth(LG 8) - followed by the baptism of water. Since Ad Gentes 7 says all need the baptism of water for salvation.

Vatican Council II can be read according to Cushingism or Feeneyism. The text is neutral.Most Catholics are interpreted Vatican Council II with irrational and non traditional Cushingism.-Lionel Andrades

The Council’s words are strong and forthright here, implicitly asserting the sovereignty of Christ over all nations, but we now seldom hear them quoted

 
In response to my (Verrecchio) request to quote from his lecture, and having shared with him the excerpt from my Catholic Identity Conference presentation, Fr. Harrison suggested that “in fairness to Vatican Council II,” I should “point out that Dignitatis Humanae #13 … specifically references in footnote 33 those words you appeal to from the end of Matthew’s Gospel (as well as Mark 16: 15 and Pius XII’s 1939 Encyclical Summi Pontificatus), in order to back up the Church’s claim of a unique right granted by Christ vis-a-vis all temporal rulers.”
He continued:
The Council’s words are strong and forthright here, implicitly asserting the sovereignty of Christ over all nations, but we now seldom hear them quoted:
“In human society and in the face of any public power whatsoever, the Church claims liberty for herself in her capacity as the spiritual authority established by Christ the Lord, charged by divine mandate with the duty of going into all the world and preaching the Gospel to every creature.”
It seems clear that any government recognizing the validity of the above claim would ipso facto be recognizing the Kingship of Christ.
 
I’m not entirely sure which governments Father has in mind here, but suffice to say that I reject the suggestion that a State that simply affords the Catholic Church the freedom that is hers by divine right is necessarily “recognizing the validity of the above claim.” Much less can one say that a State that also grants the very same right to the Church’s enemies “would ipso facto be recognizing the Kingship of Christ.”
Besides, an “ipso facto” expression of subjugation to the King is a pathetic substitute for the teaching put forth in Quas Primas which states that “not only private individuals but also rulers and princes are bound to give public honor and obedience to Christ.”

This is a common mistake in the Catholic Church. Catholics infer that the baptism of desire is visible for us and that this is the teaching in Church documents





Here is the on going discussion with Steven Speray. Comments today (Nov.25,2014)  are in blue.See the link below for the discussion on the previous days.
STEVEN SPERAY:
Wrong. Every post-Trent pope taught it the way I stated.
Nov.24,2014
Lionel:
Please cite the Council of Trent where it says that implicit desire/ baptism of desire is :
1. Visible to us in particular cases in the present times.
2. Are known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
3:Also quote any pope before Trent who has said the same (1 & 2)
They only refer to the implicit desire and being saved in invincible ignorance. They do not say that these cases are visible to us or an exception to the dogma. This was the wrong inference made by the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. There was no precedent for their irrationality.
________________________________________

Nov.25,2014.
Lionel:
There is no answer to the above questions. Steve cannot cite any pope or church document.
This is a common mistake in the Catholic Church. Catholics infer that the baptism of desire is visible for us and that this is the teaching in Church documents.
__________________________________________

Lionel:
Yes. Baptised with water in the external forum.
Baptised with water as a formal member of the Church.
Defacto needing the baptism of water.
In the external forum, as a formal member, defacto we do not know any one saved with the baptism of desire, for it to relevant or an exception to the dogma.
SPERAY: This is where you're having problems. You're right up till you say exception to the dogma. The dogma says we must be baptized to be formal members of the Church. The dogma doesn't say that we must be baptized to be saved under all conditions. Two different issues. Salvation doesn't depend on our formal membership under all conditions. The Catechism of Trent was clear about that.
Lionel:
By formal membership in the Church I am referring to the baptism of water. The baptism of water given to adults with Catholic Faith  in the Catholic Church refers to formal entry into the Church. Vatican Council II calls it 'faith and baptism'(AG 7).
Salvation in the external forum does not depend on 'faith and baptism'?
______________________________________________________ 


We do not know any one 'incorporated into the Church' without Catholic Faith and the baptism of water who is an exception to the traditional teaching on salvation.

SPERAY: Don't need to either. The Church says that's it possible under BOD, and that's it has happened under the baptism of blood.
Lionel:
'Don't need to either?'.If we do not know anyone as such in 2014 then how can there be an  exception to the dogma in the external forum?. 'Incorporated into the Church' is subjective and known only to God. It is not relevant to all needing the baptism of water and Catholic faith in the external forum.
In the external forum I can see someone receiving the baptism of water. It can be repeated before me by the priest. I also can check if someone knows the Catholic Faith. I can ask. It can be recited.So it is not subjective.
'The Church says that's it possible '. Yes it is possible to be saved with the baptism of desire.The Church and reason do not tell us that we know of any case in the present times. So if someone is invisible ( and saved with the baptism of desire) he cannot be an exception to all needing to convert into the Church in the present times.
Also it is possible that the person saved with the baptism of desire, a hypothethical case for us, could have also received the baptism of water. We would not know but Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation. The dogma also says all need the baptism of water for salvation.
_______________________________________________________


We do not know any one who 'subsists it' in the Church in 2014 who is an exception to all needing to be a member of the Church in the external forum.

SPERAY: A different issue altogether, but you didn't post all my comments last time.
Lionel:
Steve you said  not to e-mail you again on that subject  if I did not agree.
For me, the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church. For me this is the meaning of Lumen Gentium 8 and the document issued by Pope Benedict XVI.
Also subsist it refers to the internal forum.So it is not relevant to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
____________________________________________
Steve:
Vat2 used subsists concerning the Church of Christ. So you're now arguing against Vat2 that you're defending. Thank you. Vat2 is heretical on subsists clause.
Lionel:
I am defending a Vatican Council II in which subsist it belongs to the internal forum. There is no external forum with reference to LG 8.So Vatican Council II (LG 8) here does not contradict the dogma.
For you there is a contradiction.Since LG 8 refers to the external forum.What is hypothetical and subjective (for me) is considered visible and objective (by you).
______________________________________________________


Steven:
That's a different argument. BE CLEAR ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE ARGUING. Is it how to understand in the external forum how becomes a member of the Church formally? OR Is it how a person can possibly be saved in the internal forum? TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES.
Lionel:
No there is only issue. The external forum. The internal forum is known only to God. This was the mistake of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. The Letter mixes up invisible and visible, dejure and defacto,subjective and objective.

SPERAY: The internal form is known only to God when concerning subjectivity, but not objectivity. Again, you do not understand the different nuances and how they are being applied.
Lionel:
For there to be an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( all adults need the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, with Catholic Faith, for salvation) this exception must be visible and known, in the external forum, to be an exception.
We cannot say that a hypothetical case, a possibility, is visible in the external forum for example,in the  parish or diocese in which you live. So if someone is saved without the baptism of water, this year, where you live, then this would be an objective case.
So there are no objective exceptions where you live, to the dogmatic teaching.You do not know of any exception?
So every one needs the baptism of water given to adults with Catholic Faith, this year, in your parish and diocese and there are no exceptions. Since you cannot see or meet someone there saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance or imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3) etc.You would  not also  know if there was such a case of a person saved (without the baptism of water) over the last 100 years.
I use the words  objective and subjective, visible and invisible only when it is remarked that there are exceptions to the dogma.I mention it only when it is implied that the case is visible in real life, even though the reference is to  someone now in Heaven and invisible for us.
_________________________________________________

Those who are saved with the baptism of desire or blood can be saved with the baptism of water and God will provide the means.
Steven:

God can provide the means without water according to every pope after Trent.
Lionel:
You do not know of any such case.

SPERAY: I don't have to. Objectivity is the issue and you're trying to apply objective truths to subjective realities. You've never seen the Holy Ghost, but according to your arguments, you would have to say He is a theoretical Person, but you know that's stupid. So stop arguing in this fashion.

Lionel:
'I don't have to'. You would have to when  you imply that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma. You  infer that the case is known and visble to us .Otherwise how could it be an exception if it was not objective for you?
'Objectivity is the issue and you're trying to apply objective truths to subjective realities. '
Subjective realities? Do you know of a possibility ( baptism of desire) which is a reality in the present times?
I can accept for example, that St.Francis of Assisi is a saint even though I have not physically seen him in heaven. It is a subjective truth for me.If I claimed I could see him on earth then I would be saying that he is objective for me on earth.
You are saying subjective baptism of desire ,accepted subjectively as a possibility, is visible objectively and so  is an exception to  someone being saved without the baptism of water in the present times.
 
__________________________________________________
Steve:
You've never seen the Holy Ghost, but according to your arguments, you would have to say He is a theoretical Person, but you know that's stupid.
So stop arguing in this fashion.
Lionel:
I accept the Holy Ghost in faith. Subjectively only.Physically with my eyes I have not seen the Holy Ghost. I have not 'met' the Holy Ghost.
Similarly I accept the baptism of desire subjectively, theoretically - I do not imply that I can physically see these cases. I do not say that the baptism of desire is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
____________________________________________________


Neither did the popes. If this is your theoretical position, I don't have a problem with it.
Since it refers to an invisible case. Invisible cases are not defacto exceptions to the dogma in the present times.

SPERAY: There are no exceptions to the dogma anyway. That's your problem. The Dogma doesn't say that baptism is the necessity of means for salvation, but only to become a formal member of the Church in the external forum. You're confusing the two issues.
Lionel:
'There are no exceptions to the dogma anyway.?
Are you saying that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance(LG 16) are not exceptions to the dogma?


My 'theoretical' position would be that the baptism of water must follow. This would be the teaching of the dogma on salvation and Vatican Council II (AG 7).

SPERAY: I've written a whole book on the issue. As for VAt2, you're not understanding what it's saying. The conciliar popes and CDF even explain it and you still don't understand it.
Lionel:
The conciliar popes and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF),Vatican  assume that the baptism of desire and other references to salvation in Vatican Council II, are visble and known to us in the present times. So for them Vatican Council II emerges as a break with Tradition.This error , approved by Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J, the Secretary of the CDF, can be read
online in two theological papers of the International Theological Commission. Cardinal Gerhard Muller and Archbishop Augustine Di Noia also made this error in interviews given to the National Catholic Reporter. They were questioned on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The fault is with their irrational inference.They assume hypothetical cases are defacto known. They mix up subjective references with objective realities in the present times.
I do not confuse what is invisible as being visible. So LG 16,LG 8 etc do not contradict the Syllabus of Errors on other religions and Christian communities. Vatican Council II (without the irrational inference)  is in line with the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the Church Councils.
-Lionel Andrades
____________________________________________





1.

November 24, 2014

All must have faith and baptism for salvation in the Catholic Church for salvation. This is the teaching of the Holy Spirit in the Catholic Church.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/all-must-have-faith-and-baptism-for.html