Catholics also assume that the baptism of desire is defacto known to us and so is an exception to the dogma
Anthony :
"It does not say that the baptism of desire is explicitly known to us.”
I don’t think anybody claims that the baptism of desire is known to us (e.g., Archbishop Cushing). If so, please prove it to me demonstrating that they said this explicitly (and not by implication).
Lionel:
In a prepared statement for the press the former Jesuit added: "The conscience difficulty is that the diocese of Boston, under the auspices of Archbishop Cushing, and Boston College, under the auspices of Father John J. McEloney, S.J., both notably ignorant in the field of Catholic theology ... are teaching that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church." - Father Feeney Is Dismissed From Jesuit Order by Rome
The Archbishop and the Jesuits were teaching that there was salvation outside the church. In other words, that the baptism of desire and invincible e ignorance were exceptions to the dogma. They could only be exceptions if the baptism of desire etc were known to us in particular cases.
If the baptism of desire is not known to us then how can they be defacto exceptions to the dogma?
Implicit baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma.
So the Archbishop was implying that the baptism of desire is visible and known to us in particular cases.
Anthony :
Obviously, in the case of a catechumen, if we were certain that he had explicit baptism of desire, then there would be no need (other to fulfil Our Lord’s precept) to pursue getting him baptized. If we would pursue getting a catechumen baptized, how much more so would we pursue to get a non-catechumen baptized?
Lionel:
This is all very well for a conceptual discussion on this issue. However we also have to note that we do not know defacto, any case of a catechumen…
Anthony :
The terms “explicit” and “implicit” are applied in reference to the person’s awareness of his desire to be baptized and not to whether Baptism of Desire is known or not known to us. ”
Lionel:
The terms explicit and implicit can be used conceptually. However we have to recognize that it is all conceptual. We do not know any defacto case of implicit baptism of desire. Since the baptism of desire is never ever explicit for us.
Anthony :
"….every one needs to be a visible member of the Church for salvation i.e. every one needs Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.”
Cantate Domino, for example, does not teach Baptism of Water as an absolute necessity. It is true that Our Lord commanded the Apostles to go out and baptize.
Lionel:
Here is Cantate Domino.
• “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church…can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her…No one…can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.) -Catholicism.org
Anthony :
However, the necessity to be baptized by water is only a necessity of precept. If the precept is not promulgated and made known to a person, then that person cannot be held guilty for not fulfilling that precept.
Lionel:
The necessity of being baptized by water is a necessity of means and precept and the difference between the two will be judged by God only.
For you and me it is only a concept.
The dogma mentioned above says every one needs to enter the Church.One can only enter the Church with the baptism of water and Catholic Faith. We cannot choose to enter with the baptism of desire etc.
Anthony :
Cantate Domino states that everyone must be united to the Church to be saved. Monsignor Fenton, who read and understood Latin, states that the Latin of Cantate Domino uses the term “aggregatio”, which refers to being united or aggregated. Cantate Domino does not state that it is an absolute necessity to be baptized by water to be saved.
Lionel :
Here is Cantate Domino again. See the text for yourself.
• “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church…can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her…No one…, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)
'joined with Her'-Cantate Domino
How can you be' joined with Her' ? Can a non Catholic know when he has the baptism of desire, is saved with invincible ignorance or has perfect contrition ?
Anthony :
"St. Pius XII uses the standard defacto-dejure analysis in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.”
That is incorrect. Pope Pius XII uses the common necessity of precept and necessity of means analysis as clearly explained by Monsignor Fenton.
Lionel:
The necessity of precept and means is a theological point and is different from the defacto-dejure analysis which is a philosophical reasoning used in theology. It helps one to avoid contradicting the Principle of Non Contradiction.
Anthony :
"The defacto- dejure analysis is used in theology.”
Please show me one theologian (pre-Vatican II) who uses this analysis in reference to the dogma.
Lionel :
The defacto-dejure analyis is used in many magisterial texts. It is common.
For example in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 it is used.
The Letter of the Holy Office refers to ‘the dogma’. The dogma indicates that every one needs to defacto enter the Catholic Church for salvation.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 refers to the baptism of desire . The baptism of desire is known only to God. We accept it in principle (de jure) in ‘certain circumstances’. There are no defacto known cases.
So here is the defacto-dejure analysis.
Anthony :
”So the Letter of the Holy Office supports Fr.Leonard Feeney on doctrine and is in accord with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.”
Really? Are we reading the same Holy Office Letter?
Lionel :
We are reading the same Letter of the Holy Office if you use the defacto-dejure analysis to avoid contradicting the Principle of Non Contradiction. This was as done by the theologians who wrote the magisterial texts.
We are not reading the same Letter of the Holy Office 1949 if you use a defacto-defacto analysis as did the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits there. They contradicted the Principle of Non Contradiction. They assumed that the baptism of desire was de facto known to us and so it was an exception to the dogma which said that de facto all need to enter the Church for salvation.
Anthony :
Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for disobedience to legitimate authority. The root of this disobedience was a doctrinal aberration on his part.
Lionel :
Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for disobedience. He did not go to Rome when called. The doctrine aberration was that of the Archbishop of Boston who taught that the baptism of desire etc were defacto exceptions to the dogma.
How could Fr.Leonard Feeney be in doctrinal aberration when the excommunication was lifted without him having to make any change in his writing. Neither was he asked to recant.
Anthony :
You make a contrary claim here to what is clear in the Holy Office Letter.
Lionel :
You need to specify by ‘condemn’ are you referring to his excommunication for disobedience or are you implying it was for heresy.
The Letter of the Holy Office was critical of the Archbishop of Boston. It refers to 'the dogma' which says every one needs to convert into the Church for salvation.(The Archbishop says no, there are defacto exceptions). It refers to implicit and not explicit to us baptism of desire.(For the Archbishop the baptism of desire had to be explcit to be an exception to the dogma). It does not state that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma etc.
To suggest that there are defacto exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is heresy.
Anthony :
The Holy Office Letter condemns Fr. Feeney. It does not support him.
Lionel :
This is the view of the liberal media. They have been repeating the lie over the years. This is also their political position. Catholics assume that this is the teaching of the Church. Catholics also assume that the baptism of desire etc are defacto known to us and so can be exceptions to the dogma .
-Lionel Andrades
Posts
24 comments:
In a prepared statement for the press the former Jesuit added: "The conscience difficulty is that the diocese of Boston, under the auspices of Archbishop Cushing, and Boston College, under the auspices of Father John J. McEloney, S.J., both notably ignorant in the field of Catholic theology ... are teaching that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church." - Father Feeney Is Dismissed From Jesuit Order by Rome
This article and the statement of Fr. Feeney does not prove that Archbishop Cushing believed that Baptism of Desire was an exception to the dogma. Your implications are exactly that, implications. It is no different than the disagreement we are currently having. I have said many times that the dogma, whose meaning was comprehensively explained by the Holy Office Letter, includes those who are saved by Baptism of Desire. Yet you continue to hold that this implies that Baptism of Desire is an exception to the dogma because it would make Baptism of Desire known to us. No. Baptism of Desire is part of the explanation of the dogma and whether it is known to us or not is irrelevant to that explanation. It does not change the substance of the dogma. Please show me explicit evidence that Archbishop Cushing said that there is salvation outside the Church or that Baptism of Desire is an exception to the dogma. The dogma is a universal negative proposition and therefore any exceptions would violate the principle of non-contradiction.
"The necessity of being baptized by water is a necessity of means..
Sorry. You are correct on this. I realized that necessity of means can be broken down into absolute and relative. Baptism of Water is a relative necessity of means, that is, it can be supplied by the desire for Baptism, whether the desire be explicit or implicit.
"'joined with Her'-Cantate Domino"
One can be joined to the Church without being an actual member, that is, by an explicit or implicit desire to be a member. This is an important point in the proper understanding of the dogma.
"the defacto-dejure analysis which is a philosophical reasoning used in theology. It helps one to avoid contradicting the Principle of Non Contradiction."
Please give me a source for this philosophical explanation of defacto-dejure analysis and its application to the dogma. I am interested in reading it myself.
Bro.Anthony:
In a prepared statement for the press the former Jesuit added: "The conscience difficulty is that the diocese of Boston, under the auspices of Archbishop Cushing, and Boston College, under the auspices of Father John J. McEloney, S.J., both notably ignorant in the field of Catholic theology ... are teaching that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church." - Father Feeney Is Dismissed From Jesuit Order by Rome
This article and the statement of Fr. Feeney does not prove that Archbishop Cushing believed that Baptism of Desire was an exception to the dogma.
Lionel:
If anyone says that the baptism of desire is a part of the dogma or an exception to the dogma he or she is implying that the baptism of desire is explicitly known to us.
The baptism of desire is not defacto and so it is not even an issue with reference to the dogma. In a sense it is irrelevant.
Bro.Anthony:
Your implications are exactly that, implications. It is no different than the disagreement we are currently having. I have said many times that the dogma, whose meaning was comprehensively explained by the Holy Office Letter, includes those who are saved by Baptism of Desire.
Lionel:
If the baptism of desire is a part of the dogma then you are saying that the baptism of desire is real, and known to us and so is a part of the dogma.
Bro.Anthony:
Yet you continue to hold that this implies that Baptism of Desire is an exception to the dogma because it would make Baptism of Desire known to us. No. Baptism of Desire is part of the explanation of the dogma and whether it is known to us or not is irrelevant to that explanation. It does not change the substance of the dogma.
Lionel:
It does not change the substance of the dogma, correct! Since it is defacto irrelevant to the dogma.
Bro.Anthony:
Please show me explicit evidence that Archbishop Cushing said that there is salvation outside the Church or that Baptism of Desire is an exception to the dogma.
Lionel:
I have quoted you the passage above in which the Archbishop and the Jesuits objected to Fr.Leonard Feeney’s interpretation of the dogma. They said there are exceptions.
A defacto exception to the dogma? You can telephone or meet someone on the street saved with the baptism of desire ?
Bro.Anthony:
The dogma is a universal negative proposition and therefore any exceptions would violate the principle of non-contradiction.
Lionel:
The dogma is a universal positive proposition on salvation in the Catholic Church and accepts no defacto exceptions. If one says there is an exception with the baptism of desire then it would contradict the principle of non contradiction i.e every one explictly needs to enter the Church and there are explicitly known cases of non Catholics saved with the baptism of desire. We can recognize them and so they contradict the dogma. This is the violation of the principle of non contradiction.
Bro.Anthony:
"The necessity of being baptized by water is a necessity of means..
Sorry. You are correct on this. I realized that necessity of means can be broken down into absolute and relative. Baptism of Water is a relative necessity of means, that is, it can be supplied by the desire for Baptism, whether the desire be explicit or implicit.
Lionel:
The necessity of means and precept is a theological understanding of this issue. This is a conceptul way of looking at it.
The issue is that the baptism of water is explicit and needed and is NOT replaced defacto by the baptism of desire.
It is not defacto 'supplied by the desire for baptism.'
It is not explicitly 'supplied by the desire for baptism.'
It is not a defacto substitute in general or particular for the baptism of water.
Only in principle, as a concept, hypothetically, we accept that a person can be saved with the conditions of the baptism of desire ( desire, charity,faith). These cases unknown to us, could be given the grace by God to also receive the baptism of water. This is known only to God.
You are still assuming that the baptism of desire is known and explicit and an exception to the baptism of water.
Bro.Anthony:
"'joined with Her'-Cantate Domino" One can be joined to the Church without being an actual member, that is, by an explicit or implicit desire to be a member. This is an important point in the proper understanding of the dogma.
Lionel:
A non Catholic cannot choose to be joined to the Catholic Church with the baptism of desire.
A non Catholic cannot convert into the Catholic Church with the baptism of desire.
Can you assume that the baptism of desire is as explicit as the baptism of water?
It is something which we cannot choose but depends on the grace of God, so it is not a part of the dogma. In a sense it is irrelevant to the dogma which says every one needs to convert into the Church (explicitly) for salvation.
Bro.Anthony:
"the defacto-dejure analysis which is a philosophical reasoning used in theology. It helps one to avoid contradicting the Principle of Non Contradiction." Please give me a source for this philosophical explanation of defacto-dejure analysis and its application to the dogma. I am interested in reading it myself.
Lionel:
It has been a few years since I studied Philosophy at the Regina Apostolorum University in Rome.
Reason tells me that the defacto-dejure analysis exists and it is important to avoid the Principle of Non Contradiction. The Principle of Non Contradiction is also taught in Philosophy.
The present Rector of the Department of Philosophy at the University Regina Apostolorum,Rome is Fr.Rafael Pascual L.C.
You could talk to somone who teaches Philosophy.
"If the baptism of desire is a part of the dogma then you are saying that the baptism of desire is real, and known to us and so is a part of the dogma.
The desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit, is a real way that someone may go to heaven without having received the Baptism of Water. However, who exactly is in heaven that was saved this way, we do not know, unless by special revelation from God.
"You can telephone or meet someone on the street saved with the baptism of desire?"
We don't know who will be saved by the desire, implicit or explicit, for Baptism. That is why if we meet someone who is not baptized, we will continue to pursue him getting baptized. On the other hand, we don't know if someone will be saved even if he is Baptized with water.
"The dogma is a universal positive proposition on salvation in the Catholic Church and accepts no defacto exceptions."
The dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church is a universal negative proposition, also known as an "e" proposition in formal logic. The contradictory proposition is known as an "i" proposition, that is, there is salvation outside the Church.
"The necessity of means and precept is a theological understanding of this issue."
Theology is the appropriate method to understand Divine Revelation, whereas philosophy is only the handmaid of theology. Since Baptism is a sacrament, then philosophy on its own is not sufficient.
"The issue is that the baptism of water is explicit and needed and is NOT replaced defacto by the baptism of desire. It is not defacto 'supplied by the desire for baptism.' It is not explicitly 'supplied by the desire for baptism.' It is not a defacto substitute in general or particular for the baptism of water."
"De facto" means "in fact", that is, something which is "de facto" is really occurring. A thing that happens in fact may or may not be explicit. The two terms are not synonymous. For example, I may have thought that nobody else knows about because they cannot read by mind. The thought was in my mind "de facto", but it was not known to anybody else. In a similar way, someone can be saved with the desire for Baptism "de facto", but only God knows about it. It is not explicit or known to us.
"You are still assuming that the baptism of desire is known and explicit and an exception to the baptism of water.
No. Baptism of Desire is not explicit (in that I can see it) and not known in a particular case. However, the Church clearly teaches that it is possible. If the Church teaches that it is possible, then it is possible, regardless if it is explicit or known to me in a particular case. Are you saying that since the time the Sacrament of Baptism was instituted by Christ, all those who made it to heaven received the Baptism of Water? that nobody is in heaven who did not receive the Baptism of Water? If you answer in the affirmative, then you in practice deny what the Church teaches.
"A non Catholic cannot choose to be joined to the Catholic Church with the baptism of desire.
A non-Catholic who chooses to be saved with the Baptism of Desire is "de facto" not interested in doing God's will because he is aware that God has commanded him to be baptized and yet he refuses. However, a non-Catholic who chooses to receive the Baptism of Water, but dies just before he actually does receive the Sacrament, may be saved by the fact that he desired it.
"In a sense it is irrelevant to the dogma which says every one needs to convert into the Church (explicitly) for salvation.
This is incomplete. The dogma states that "outside the Church, there is no salvation". Therefore, one must be united to the Church in some way to be "within" it. Those who are aware of the need of the Church, but ignore it or don't care are justly considered "outside" it. However, those who are not aware of the need of the Church can still be "within" it by their desire (in this case, implicit) to join it. The full meaning of the dogma is clearly explained in the Holy Office Letter and expressed traditionally by theologians using the necessity of precept and necessity of means distinction.
"Reason tells me that the defacto-dejure analysis exists..."
So it is your own reason alone that moves you to use the defacto-dejure analysis? I have given you a few sources for the necessity of precept/means distinction and yet you cannot give me one source other than yourself for the defacto-dejure analysis. This makes me very weary in accepting such a distinction for the purpose of explaining the dogma.
"You could talk to somone who teaches Philosophy."
Believe it or not I have been in contact with someone who is a Doctor of Philosophy (Thomistic). Without me even mentioning you, he himself told me that there is this guy Lionel who is spreading some strange explanation regarding the dogma!
Bro.Anthony:
"You are still assuming that the baptism of desire is known and explicit and an exception to the baptism of water. No. Baptism of Desire is not explicit (in that I can see it) and not known in a particular case.
Lionel:
So we agree and understand each other here.
Bro.Anthony:
However, the Church clearly teaches that it is possible.
Lionel:
We agree. It is possible to be saved with the baptism of desire we accept this in principle (in theory).
Bro.Anthony
If the Church teaches that it is possible, then it is possible, regardless if it is explicit or known to me in a particular case.
Lionel:
Yes it is possible.Even though it is always implicit and never ever explicit to us in any case.It is possible.
Bro.Anthony:
Are you saying that since the time the Sacrament of Baptism was instituted by Christ, all those who made it to heaven received the Baptism of Water? that nobody is in heaven who did not receive the Baptism of Water? If you answer in the affirmative, then you in practice deny what the Church teaches.
Lionel: I am saying that all those who are in Heaven are saved with the baptism of water and Catholic faith which is the ordinary means of salvation. If there is someone saved with the baptism of desire etc I am saying that it is a possibility, I accept this as a possibility in theory and know that it is defacto(practically/in reality) known only to God.So these cases are not known and neither are they an exception to the baptism of water being needed for all.
Conversely you cannot say that you know anyone who is in Heaven with the baptism of desire in the present times.
While we agree that those saved with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water are saved with the ordinary normal means to go to Heaven.
CONTINUED
CONTINUED
Bro.Anthony:
"A non Catholic cannot choose to be joined to the Catholic Church with the baptism of desire. A non-Catholic who chooses to be saved with the Baptism of Desire is "de facto" not interested in doing God's will because he is aware that God has commanded him to be baptized and yet he refuses .
Lionel:
He cannot choose since he does not know he has the baptism of desire. These are rare cases, a possibility ‘in certain circumstances’(Letter of the Holy Office 1949).
Once cannot choose to be saved with ‘perfect contrition’. Since it cannot be spontaneously and repeatedly produced and one would not know if the contrition is perfect.
The baptism of desire case is different from that of the non Catholic who knowS he should be in the Catholic Church and yet does not enter.
Bro.Anthony:
However, a non-Catholic who chooses to receive the Baptism of Water, but dies just before he receiveS the Sacrament, may be saved by the fact that he desired it.In a sense it is irrelevant to the dogma which says every one needs to convert into the Church (explicitly) for salvation. This is incomplete. The dogma states that "outside the Church, there is no salvation".
Lionel:
The dogma states that every one needs to convert into the Church. I have quoted you Cantate Domino, Council of Florence.One has to join the Church, live as a Catholic and be faithful to the Holy Father.
Bro.Anthony:
Therefore, one must be united to the Church in some way to be "within" it.
Lionel:
You can only choose to be united with the baptism of water and Catholic Faith. When the dogmas were defined the baptism of desire etc was not an issue in the Church.
Bro.Anthony:
Those who are aware of the need of the Church, but ignore it or don't care are justly considered "outside" it.
Lionel:
Yes.
Bro.Anthony:
However, those who are not aware of the need of the Church can still be "within" it by their desire (in this case, implicit) to join it.
Lionel:
Yes, in theory.
Bro.Anthony
The full meaning of the dogma is clearly explained in the Holy Office Letter and expressed traditionally by theologians using the necessity of precept and necessity of means distinction.
Lionel:
Yes in theory. In reality they seem unaware that defacto baptism of desire etc is not an exception to the dogma.
The necessity of precept and means is true theologically and we agree on this in principle.
De facto I know that we cannot know any one on earth saved with the necessity of means or precept.
So it is irrelevant with reference to the dogma. The dogma says every one needs to explicitly enter the Church, this is the norm. If there are exceptions with the necessity of precept and means it would be known to God.It is irrelevant in a sense for you and me.
Bro.Anthony
"Reason tells me that the defacto-dejure analysis exists..." So it is your own reason alone that moves you to use the defacto-dejure analysis?
Lionel:
I understand it with my reason. I have provided you many examples from magisterial texts.
CONTINUED
CONTINUED
Bro.Anthony:
I have given you a few sources for the necessity of precept/means distinction and yet you cannot give me one source other than yourself for the defacto-dejure analysis.
Lionel:
I agree with your source regarding the distinction between means and precept.
I have quoted you the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 in which the defacto-dejure reasoning is used to avoid contradting the Principle of Non Contradiction.
I have shown it to you in Mystici Corporis, Quas Primas, Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church etc. I have quoted you the paragraphs and shown you the precise texts.
Bro.Anthony:
This makes me very weary in accepting such a distinction for the purpose of explaining the dogma.
Lionel:
We can understand the text with the explicit-implicit, de facto-dejure, in theory or in practice reasoning. These forms of reasoning are universal.
Bro.Anthony:
"You could talk to somone who teaches Philosophy." Believe it or not I have been in contact with someone who is a Doctor of Philosophy (Thomistic). Without me even mentioning you, he himself told me that there is this guy Lionel who is spreading some strange explanation regarding the dogma!
Lionel:
I have been fond of Philosophy since a youth and remember reading the classics. I am aware of the Socratic reasoning(dialectics).In reading Plato one would often come across the Socratic method in search of Truth. However Plato just describes the teaching of Socrates. He is not into giving names to the Socratic method.
Similarly I can only quote you the actual texts in magisterial documents which use a defacto -dejure analysis to avoid violating the Principle of Non Contradiction.
Similarly, I can only quote you those same texts in magisterial documents which can be interpreted with a defacto-defacto(explicit-explicit) reasoning and which contradicts the Principle of Non Contradiction.
The dejure -defacto concepts are recognized in the Introduction to Dominus Iesus. Here it is:
The Church's constant missionary proclamation is endangered today by relativistic theories which seek to justify religious pluralism, not only de facto but also de iure (or in principle).
-Dominus Iesus,Introduction
Bro.Anthony:
"If the baptism of desire is a part of the dogma then you are saying that the baptism of desire is real, and known to us and so is a part of the dogma. The desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit, is a real way that someone may go to heaven without having received the Baptism of Water.
Lionel:
Correct in theory.
Also note that I use the distinction in theory and in practice, explicit or implicitl
Bro.Anthony:
However, who exactly is in heaven that was saved this way, we do not know, unless by special revelation from God.
Lionel:
Yes I agree .
However those who receive the baptism of water can be known to us. The baptism of water is visible and repeatable. The Church says it is the only way( the only available means ) to wipe out Original Sin and go to Heaven.
Bro.Anthony:
"You can telephone or meet someone on the street saved with the baptism of desire?" We don't know who will be saved by the desire, implicit or explicit, for Baptism. That is why if we meet someone who is not baptized, we will continue to pursue him getting baptized.
Lionel:
Correct.I agree.
Bro.Anthony:
On the other hand, we don't know if someone will be saved even if he is Baptized with water.
Lionel:
The Catholic Church teaches that Catholic Faith and the baptism of water are needed for salvation. So we know that they are oriented to Heaven if they die in this condition and without mortal sin on their soul.
On the other hand if someone does not have Catholic Faith and is not baptized with water we know that this person is oriented to Hell at the time of death. The Church tells us so.
This is the ordinary means to go to Heaven and if there are any possible exceptions, and there could be, it would be known only to God.
Bro.Anthony:
"The dogma is a universal positive proposition on salvation in the Catholic Church and accepts no defacto exceptions." The dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church is a universal negative proposition, also known as an "e" proposition in formal logic. The contradictory proposition is known as an "i" proposition, that is, there is salvation outside the Church.
CONTINUED
CONTINUED
Lionel:
‘i’ is a false proposition.It is built upon the false foundation of a visible baptism of desire and an explicitly known case of a person saved in invincible ignorance.
If one did not know these ‘explicit’ cases only ‘e’ would remain.
Bro.Anthony:
"The necessity of means and precept is a theological understanding of this issue." Theology is the appropriate method to understand Divine Revelation, whereas philosophy is only the handmaid of theology. Since Baptism is a sacrament, then philosophy on its own is not sufficient.
Lionel:
In the subject we are discussing we are using philosophical reasoning like the Principle of Non Contradiction etc and applying it to theology.
Bro.Anthony:
"The issue is that the baptism of water is explicit and needed and is NOT replaced defacto by the baptism of desire. It is not defacto 'supplied by the desire for baptism.' It is not explicitly 'supplied by the desire for baptism.' It is not a defacto substitute in general or particular for the baptism of water." "De facto" means "in fact", that is, something which is "de facto" is really occurring.
Lionel:
Correct.In reality. As a fact.
Bro.Anthony:
A thing that happens in fact may or may not be explicit.
Lionel:
A thing can happen in fact and may be explicit or implicit.
In this particular case the baptism of desire is always implicit for us and never explicit.
Bro.Anthony:
The two terms are not synonymous. For example, I may have a thought that nobody else knows about because they cannot read by mind.
Lionel:
It was implicit for you and others around you.
Bro.Anthony:
The thought was in my mind "de facto", but it was not known to anybody else.
Lionel:
The thought was in your mind and it was 'explicit' for you and not for others.
However thoughts are usually assumed to be subjective and implicit.
Bro.Anthony:
In a similar way, someone can be saved with the desire for Baptism "de facto", but only God knows about it. It is not explicit or known to us.
Lionel:
Correct it would only be de facto for God. Since it is always and only defacto for God it is never known to us. The same with a person saved in invincible ignorance.
So I think the section on invincible ignorance, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church should not be included under the sub title Outside the Church there is no salvation.
Since these cases are defacto only for God and so they cannot be known exceptions to the dogma.
And the dogma has no exceptions- as in the 'e' proposition.
Part I
Dogma: Outside the Church, there is no salvation.
Lionel's interpretation: Everyone, without exception, must explicitly enter the Church with the Baptism of Water to be saved. (universal positive proposition, that is, an "A" proposition)
Contradictory propositon: Some men are saved without explicitly entering the Church with the Baptism of Water. (particular negative proposition, that is, an "O" proposition)
Lionel's contradictory statement: "This is the ordinary means to go to Heaven and if there are any possible exceptions, and there could be, it would be known only to God."
Here Lionel admits that there could be possible exceptions to being saved by Baptism of Water and yet he holds that the dogma is a universal proposition. There can be no exceptions to a universal proposition, whether that proposition is a universal positive or universal negative. Does it matter whether the infusion of sanctifying grace (through Baptism of Water or the desire thereof) is known to us or not? It does not. You cannot contradict the universality of the dogma, as stated by Lionel's interpretation, by saying that Baptism of Desire is not known to us and therefore it does not contradict the dogma. The dogma, as interpreted by Lionel, cannot possibly have any exceptions. Everyone, without exception, must be water baptized in order to be saved. If there is even one soul in heaven who did not get water baptized, then Lionel's interpretation of the dogma cannot be true.
Part II
"The dejure -defacto concepts are recognized in the Introduction to Dominus Iesus. Here it is:
The Church's constant missionary proclamation is endangered today by relativistic theories which seek to justify religious pluralism, not only de facto but also de iure (or in principle).
-Dominus Iesus,Introduction"
This statement is not a direct referral to the dogma. Please show me one magisterial text or theologian or even one philosopher who have used the defact-dejure analysis by explictly referring to those terms when explaining the meaning of the dogma. Is it possible that you firmly adhere to an analysis for which you cannot supply even one direct source?
Bro.Anthony:
Part I Dogma: Outside the Church, there is no salvation. Lionel's interpretation: Everyone, without exception, must explicitly enter the Church with the Baptism of Water to be saved. (universal positive proposition, that is, an "A" proposition)
Lionel:
Correct.They need to enter the Catholic Church with Catholic Faith which includes the baptism of water. There are no defacto exceptions.
Note I use the word defacto.Meaning in reality,practically, as opposed to theory, explicitly as opposed to implicitly.
Bro.Anthony:
Contradictory propositon: Some men are saved without explicitly entering the Church with the Baptism of Water. (particular negative proposition, that is, an "O" proposition)
Lionel: Incorrect and confusing.
Some men could be saved as a possibility, in principle (dejure).The phrase ‘some men are saved’ is misleading. We could wrongly assume that you are saying that you know of particular men, in the present time who are saved.In other wordsit is wrong to say, defacto and known to us,some men are saved in the present time without explicitly entering the Church with the baptism of water.
I repeat again you do not use the practical-theory, explicit-implicit, de facto-dejure qualification in the your writing.
Bro.Anthony:
Lionel's contradictory statement: "This is the ordinary means to go to Heaven and if there are any possible exceptions, and there could be, it would be known only to God."
Here Lionel admits that there could be possible exceptions to being saved by Baptism of Water and yet he holds that the dogma is a universal proposition.
Lionel:
A 'possible exception' is not a 'defacto known exception'.
It is a possibility, something theoretical, probable, accepted in principle (dejure).
So it is not contradictory.
You could be assuming that a possible exception is a defacto exception known in particular cases.
Possibilities are unknown.
CONTINUED
CONTINUED
Bro.Anthony:
There can be no exceptions to a universal proposition, whether that proposition is a universal positive or universal negative.
Lionel:
There are no defacto exceptions to the dogma. These cases are defacto only to God.
Bro.Anthony:
Does it matter whether the infusion of sanctifying grace (through Baptism of Water or the desire thereof) is known to us or not? It does not.
You cannot contradict the universality of the dogma, as stated by Lionel's interpretation, by saying that Baptism of Desire is not known to us and therefore it does not contradict the dogma.
Lionel:
We do not know any case of a person with the baptism of desire so how could we know if the person has or does not have sanctifying grace.
The baptism of desire does not contradict the dogma since the baptism of desire does not exist in any known case on earth whom we can name. If the person does not exist on earth how can he contradict the dogma.
Bro.Anthony:
The dogma, as interpreted by Lionel, cannot possibly have any exceptions.
Lionel:
It cannot have any particular, defacto, explicit exception. Practically, none.
In theory, as a possibility,unknown in particular cases, a non reality for us, we can hope, and never know for sure- that there could be a case of a person saved with the baptism of desire and this would be known only to God.
Since these cases are theoretical they are not a defacto exception to the dogma as it was interpreted for centuries by the popes, the saints and Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston.
Bro.Anthony:
Everyone, without exception, must be water baptized in order to be saved.
Lionel:
Correct.Everyone on earth i.e in the present time.
Bro.Anthony:
If there is even one soul in heaven who did not get water baptized, then Lionel's interpretation of the dogma cannot be true.
Lionel:
If there is one soul in heaven who did not get water baptized we would not know who that soul is.
We do not know if there is even one such soul. However if there is, we accept it in principle. We acknowledge it as a possibility only.
CONTINUED
CONTINUED
Bro.Anthony:
Part II "The dejure -defacto concepts are recognized in the Introduction to Dominus Iesus. Here it is: The Church's constant missionary proclamation is endangered today by relativistic theories which seek to justify religious pluralism, not only de facto but also de iure (or in principle). -Dominus Iesus,Introduction" This statement is not a direct referral to the dogma.
Lionel:
This statement is a direct referral to the words de jure and defacto. These are words which are defined precisely in secular dictionary and refer to a form of reasoning which is universal.
This reasoning, explicit-implicit, in theory-in practise, defacto-dejure, is a reasoning which is commonplace. It is used in philosophy and theology. It is applied to our understanding and interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Bro.Anthony:
Please show me one magisterial text or theologian or even one philosopher who have used the defact-dejure analysis by explictly referring to those terms when explaining the meaning of the dogma. Is it possible that you firmly adhere to an analysis for which you cannot supply even one direct source?
Lionel:
The Principle of non Contradiction is used in the study of Philosophy and Theology. The last time I observed it, it was in the writing of the apologist Robert Sungenis.
The in theory-in practise terms, I probably used when I was in schoool. It is such a common term.
For example, in theory we can judge ourself by what we can do.In practice others judge us by what we have done.
So now what is the source of this in theory-in practise analysis?
In the same way I can say with simple reason that dejure,in principle I could judge myself by what I can do. De facto ,others judge me by what I have done, practically.
"I repeat again you do not use the practical-theory, explicit-implicit, de facto-dejure qualification in the your writing."
Please state your proposition/thesis regarding the meaning of the dogma that "outside the Church, there is no salvation". Also, please define your terms.
"This statement is a direct referral to the words de jure and defacto. These are words which are defined precisely in secular dictionary and refer to a form of reasoning which is universal.
I do not argue the terms as such. "De facto" means "in fact" and "de jure" means "established by law". What I contend is that you are using the terms to defend a thesis that you have not been able to demonstrate being used by anybody else. Are you the first one to use these terms to interpret the dogma? I know these are philosophical/legal terms, but terms can be used to explain theological concepts. For example, the philosophical concept of substance and accident are used to explain how Christ is present in the Eucharist. Again, I ask you, provide me a source that uses the terms "de facto" and "de jure" to explain the dogma in the sense you have done so.
Bro.Anthony:
"I repeat again you do not use the practical-theory, explicit-implicit, de facto-dejure qualification in the your writing." Please state your proposition/thesis regarding the meaning of the dogma that "outside the Church, there is no salvation".
Lionel:
My proposition/thesis is that all magisterial documents, in general, it is assumed, are written in a way to avoid violating the Principle of Non Contradiction.
To avoid contradicting this established teaching in the Catholic Church, the logical and rational 'dejure' and 'defacto' terms are used.
You have correctly said that the term defacto means ‘in fact’. While Dominus Iesus says ‘de jure’ means ‘in principle’. De jure ‘established by law’ is a term from political science and law and is not applicable here.
The words dejure and defacto can also be interposed with the terms ‘in theory’ and ‘practically’, ‘implicit’ and ‘explicit’.
This is normal reasoning since using the defacto-defacto, explicit-explicit theory is irrational and violates the Principle of Non Contradiction.
Bro.Anthony:
Also, please define your terms. "This statement is a direct referral to the words de jure and defacto. These are words which are defined precisely in secular dictionary and refer to a form of reasoning which is universal. I do not argue the terms as such. "De facto" means "in fact" and "de jure" means "established by law". What I contend is that you are using the terms to defend a thesis that you have not been able to demonstrate being used by anybody else. Are you the first one to use these terms to interpret the dogma?
Lionel:
The terms are used directly in the Introduction to Dominus Iesus. So one assumes that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and other theologians who worked on Magisterial texts were familiar with this reasoning.
Bro.Anthony:
I know these are philosophical/legal terms, but terms can be used to explain theological concepts. For example, the philosophical concept of substance and accident are used to explain how Christ is present in the Eucharist. Again, I ask you, provide me a source that uses the terms "de facto" and "de jure" to explain the dogma in the sense you have done so.
Lionel:
My source for using these terms is the understanding of the text itself. I had difficulty explaining myself in arguments with priests in the past until once when I was talking to a friend Fr.Massimiliano dei Gaspari F.I he used the word “dejure”. Then I realised that this was a single,compact word for the long train of thought I used to express.
Then last Sunday a priest from the same community as Fr.Massimiliano during the homily on the feast of the Baptism of Our Lord, said ‘in theory’ the baptism of desire is possible, ‘practically’ it is an impossibility.
He used the words “in theory” and “practically”.
"My proposition/thesis is that all magisterial documents, in general, it is assumed, are written in a way to avoid violating the Principle of Non Contradiction."
Please state your propositon regarding the meaning of the dogma and define your terms.
"I was talking to a friend Fr.Massimiliano dei Gaspari F.I he used the word “dejure”."
Lionel, can you please just give me one written source of repute that explicitly uses the terms in explaining the dogma? If you can't give me a source, then you must realize that you cannot expect people to adhere to your explanation. I have given you a few sources in the theological explanation of the dogma with the "necessity of precept and means" and the Holy Office Letter clearly follows that line of thought. If you don't have a source, then just plainly say so.
"Then last Sunday a priest from the same community as Fr.Massimiliano during the homily on the feast of the Baptism of Our Lord, said ‘in theory’ the baptism of desire is possible, ‘practically’ it is an impossibility.
He used the words “in theory” and “practically”."
What don't you just come out and clearly state that you believe that each and every person who is heaven was baptized with water - that there are no exceptions whatsoever? That Baptism of Desire is a false teaching? You are relegating the doctrine of Baptism of Desire to a mere concept with no practical possibilities or consequences. I can say that "in principle" unicorns possibly exist, but "practically" it is impossible that they do exist because the reality of them are only known to God since I have never actually seen one. If a tree falls in the middle of the forest where no one is there to see it fall except God, does that make the fall a non-reality? The conclusion that I reach is that you deny the teaching of the Baptism of Desire,, whether you want to or not. I am sorry, but I am having a hard time seeing it another way.
Bro. Anthony:
"My proposition/thesis is that all magisterial documents, in general, it is assumed, are written in a way to avoid violating the Principle of Non Contradiction." Please state your proposition regarding the meaning of the dogma and define your terms.
Lionel:
I have done it in the last post and in countless posts over the last few months.
Bro. Anthony:
"I was talking to a friend Fr. Massimiliano dei Gaspari F.I he used the word “dejure”." Lionel, can you please just give me one written source of repute that explicitly uses the terms in explaining the dogma?
Lionel:
I repeat the defacto-dejure, explicit-implicit; in theory-in practise, form of reasoning is used in magisterial texts to avoid violating the Principle of Non Contradiction. I showed you the texts in which it was used e.g. Mystici Corporis, Letter of the Holy Office, Quas Primas etc. I am quoting you the actual texts and you keep asking me for a written source of repute.
Then I quote you priests and apologists who use this form of reasoning and then you ask for someone in particular of repute.
I gave you an example of the use of the words 'in theory' and 'in practise' and I asked you if you could give me a reference to when was it used by someone of repute, you do not answer.
Bro. Anthony:
If you can't give me a source, then you must realize that you cannot expect people to adhere to your explanation.
Lionel:
I have provided you with so many sources, texts from the Magisterium itself. Secondly this is not my explanation. I am only pointing out to this reasoning already there in magisterial texts, including those issued before we were born.So this is not my explaination or theory.
CONTINUED
Bro. Anthony:
"My proposition/thesis is that all magisterial documents, in general, it is assumed, are written in a way to avoid violating the Principle of Non Contradiction." Please state your proposition regarding the meaning of the dogma and define your terms.
Lionel:
I have done it in the last post and in countless posts over the last few months.
Bro. Anthony:
"I was talking to a friend Fr. Massimiliano dei Gaspari F.I he used the word “dejure”." Lionel, can you please just give me one written source of repute that explicitly uses the terms in explaining the dogma?
Lionel:
I repeat the defacto-dejure, explicit-implicit; in theory-in practise, form of reasoning is used in magisterial texts to avoid violating the Principle of Non Contradiction. I showed you the texts in which it was used e.g. Mystici Corporis, Letter of the Holy Office, Quas Primas etc. I am quoting you the actual texts and you keep asking me for a written source of repute.
Then I quote you priests and apologists who use this form of reasoning and then you ask for someone in particular of repute.
I gave you an example of the use of the words 'in theory' and 'in practise' and I asked you if you could give me a reference to when was it used by someone of repute, you do not answer.
Bro. Anthony:
If you can't give me a source, then you must realize that you cannot expect people to adhere to your explanation.
Lionel:
I have provided you with so many sources, texts from the Magisterium itself. Secondly this is not my explanation. I am only pointing out to this reasoning already there in magisterial texts, including those issued before we were born.So this is not my explaination or theory.
CONTINUED
Bro. Anthony:
I have given you a few sources in the theological explanation of the dogma with the "necessity of precept and means" and the Holy Office Letter clearly follows that line of thought.
Lionel:
So I agree with the source from the Holy Office and I clearly mentioned that this is valid theology but irrelevant for the issue we are discussing.Since we do not know any one saved with the necessity of precept (baptism of desire).
Bro. Anthony:
If you don't have a source, then just plainly say so.
Lionel:
A source for the use of the words 'de facto' and 'dejure' is the Introduction to the Dominus Iesus. Cardinal Ratzinger mentions that the word 'dejure' means 'in principle'. So we can use the word 'in principle' since the source is Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.
So in principle (dejure) we accept the baptism of desire, being saved by precept and without the known means of the baptism of water. Since there are no known persons on earth in this condition it does not contradict the dogma outside the church there is no salvation.
Bro. Anthony:
"Then last Sunday a priest from the same community as Fr. Massimiliano during the homily on the feast of the Baptism of Our Lord, said ‘in theory’ the baptism of desire is possible, ‘practically’ it is impossibility. He used the words “in theory” and “practically”." What don't you just come out and clearly state that you believe that each and every person who is heaven was baptized with water - that there are no exceptions whatsoever?
Lionel:
The priest made the distinction between 'in theory' and 'practically', a distintinction which you still cannot make and so are having difficulty.
Bro. Anthony:
That Baptism of Desire is a false teaching?
Lionel:
An explicitly known baptism of desire is a false teaching. It is the heresy of Cushingism.
I accept an implicit baptism of desire known only to God.
Bro. Anthony:
You are relegating the doctrine of Baptism of Desire to a mere concept with no practical possibilities or consequences.
Lionel:
I am saying the baptism of desire is a possibility but due to its very nature it cannot be defacto known to us humans. Also its practical possibilities or consequences, are unknown to us and only known to God.
Bro. Anthony:
I can say that "in principle" unicorns possibly exist, but "practically" it is impossible that they do exist because the reality of them are only known to God since I have never actually seen one.
Lionel:
You cannot use this analogy here since unicorns can be known to us on earth. The baptism of desire cannot.
Bro. Anthony:
If a tree falls in the middle of the forest where no one is there to see it fall except God, does that make the fall a non-reality?
Many trees fall and they are known only to God.However the falling of a tree is not an unknown thing to us. The baptism of desire is.
Bro. Anthony:
The conclusion that I reach is that you deny the teaching of the Baptism of Desire, whether you want to or not. I am sorry, but I am having a hard time seeing it another way.
Lionel:
I deny an explicitly known baptism of desire and affirm an implicit desire.
You have said that you accept that a baptism of desire is not known to us.So I assume you reject an explicitly known baptism of desire and accept the possibility of someone having an implicit baptism of desire.
Lionel,
Thank you for the discussion, but I am done arguing. You have not convinced me of your thesis and I know I have not convinced you of mine. Let us agree to disagree.
Post a Comment