Friday, September 14, 2012

THEOLOGICALLY THERE IS NO BAPTISM OF DESIRE IT IS SAID- WHAT ABOUT PHILOSOPHICALLY ? Can you see it? Is it visible to us?

If  it exists or does not exist for the traditionalists, can they see any case of the baptism of desire in 2012?


If we cannot see these cases ,what difference does it make to the literal interpretation of the dogma ?
Here are the latest comments on this blog post.


SEPTEMBER 14, 2012 12:08 PM
servusDominaeNostrae said...
You claim that "You and I do not know any case of a person saved with the baptism of desire."

Lionel:
Do you agree ?

No i don't agree because there isn't a case of baptism of desire period. I confess as a catholic, one baptism for the remission of sins. There are no other baptisms. It doesn't matter if i know them; i wasn't asked to know but to confess; so what I confess is the only one since what i confess belongs to the church.


SEPTEMBER 14, 2012 12:12 PM
servusDominaeNostrae said...


Lionel:
 The Catholic Church says there is the possibility of a person being saved with the baptism of desire etc. So we accept it as a possibility

So the same church whic tells us to "confess one baptism for th remission of sins" says that "baptism of desire is a possibility?" Sounds a bit contradictory; catholic churc cannot contradict itself


servusDominaeNostrae said...
You say that Vatican II mention those who are saved in invinsible ignorance but do not claim that they are known to us...". Don't you find that a bit contradictory?

Lionel:
It is only contradictory if you assume that they are known to us.


In itself it is not a problem.


servusDominaeNostrae said...
How can Vatican II teach what is not known to us?


Lionel:
Vatican Council II simply mentions invincible ignorance etc. Possibilities are not known realities.

servusDominaeNostrae said...
If V II doesn't know then it simply shouldn't say. Can you answer that?

Lionel:
Invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are not known realities, we do not know any explicit case. In principle, in faith we accept that they could be possibilities known only to God.

So it is mentiond by the Church Fathers,the Councils, the popes, the saints and Vatican Council II.


servusDominaeNostrae said...
Lionel:
 It is heretical to assume that we know cases on earth saved with the baptism of desire who are exceptions to the defined dogma. It's also irrational.


I agree with you.

servusDominaeNostrae said...
So baptism of desire is a baptism that is unknown?


Lionel:
It is unknown to us, we cannot see any case. We do not know any case on earth.


servusDominaeNostrae said...
If it is unknown; how do we know that it even exists or if it's even a possibility?

Lionel:
In faith. The Church refers to it. Pop pius XII refers to it so do the many popes and saints.


Even the community of Fr.Leonard Feeney has provided a definition of it. (genuine desire, charity and the baptism of water).

They do not know any particular case but in faith they know it is possible to be saved in this way.

servusDominaeNostrae said...
It's not just about what we know; but what actually exists; can we speculate about what is unknown?


Lionel:
In faith, according to the teachings of the Church it is possible for a non Catholic to be saved with implicit desire.

When this occurs it is not relevant to the literal interpretation of the dogma.


servusDominaeNostrae said...
"I'll deal with the blatently erroneous statement first; that "there is only one known baptism"


Lionel:
The baptism of water is the only known baptism. We can see it and repeat it.


The Nicene Creed refers to this baptism.

servusDominaeNostrae said...
If we said in the Nicene Creed "I believe in one known baptism for the remission of sins" I would agree with you; but it doesn't and you'd have to concede that if the Nicene Creed is placed next to your assertion about "knowledge" then the two professions would be different and would mean different things. The Nicene Creed says "I believe in one baptism..." Your Creed would say "I believe in one known baptism" which implies that it is a possibility that there are other baptisms which are unknown."

you didn't deal with this response by me; tht the Nicene Creed proves thee is one baptism; and dosn't assert one "known" baptism; i confess one baptism for the remission of sins; what's the one baptism that you confess?

Lionel:
If 'my Creed' was there it would say I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin. It would mean, according to common sense, 'I believe in one known baptism for the forgivess of sin'. The baptism of desire is unknown.


ServusDominaeNostrae said...
Lionel:
 I would not have to say I beleive in one known baptism since there is ONLY one known baptism.

No, there is only one baptism period;


Lionel.
Correct. The baptism of water.


In reality there is only one known baptism.


Explicitly there is only one known baptism.


Dejure (implicitly) and known only to God there can be a baptism unknown to us, which is not visible to us. Implicit desire is not visible to us.So if someone is saved with implicit desire and in a manner known only to God it would not be known to us.

it's wrong to say there is one known baptism because it asserts ther are other unknown baptisms.

Lionel:
 Yes in faith we accept that a person can be saved with implicit desire and conditions known to God. Since this does not contradict the dogma it is not an issue.


servusDominaeNostrae said...
You claim that "You and I do not know any case of a person saved with the baptism of desire."

Lionel:
Do you agree ?

servusDominaeNostrae said...
No i don't agree because there isn't a case of baptism of desire period.

Lionel:
You mean theologically you agree there is no baptism of desire period..

Philosophically also you cannot see any person saved with the baptism of desire ?


Visibly you cannot see the dead-saved with the baptism of desire?

servusDominaeNostrae said...
I confess as a catholic, one baptism for the remission of sins.


Lionel:
Yes as Catholics we confess one (known) baptism of water for the forgiveness of sins.In reality, defacto there is only one baptism for the forgivessness of sins.

servusDominaeNostrae said...
There are no other baptisms.

Lionel:
In reality, de facto there are no other baptisms. Explicitly there are none in 2012.

servusDominaeNostrae said...
It doesn't matter if i know them;

Lionel:
You cannot know them.


They are unknown to you and me in reality, in 2012.

servusDominaeNostrae said...
i wasn't asked to know but to confess; so what I confess is the only one since what i confess belongs to the church.

Lionel:
We can confess that there is only the baptism of water for the forgiveness of sins in 2012.


There are no other baptisms known in 2012.


servusDominaeNostrae said...
Lionel:
 The Catholic Church says there is the possibility of a person being saved with the baptism of desire etc. So we accept it as a possibility

servusDominaeNostrae said
So the same church which tells us to "confess one baptism for the remission of sins" says that "baptism of desire is a possibility?" Sounds a bit contradictory; catholic church cannot contradict itself

Lionel:
 It would be contradictory if you considered a possibility  being a known reality in 2012.

If the baptism of desire is not a reality in 2012, we do not know any case, then it does not contradict the teaching that there is only the baptism of water in 2012 for the fogiveness of sins and for salvation.


It does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction.
-Lionel Andrades
_____________________________________________

DIMOND BROTHERS ASSUME THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS VISIBLE TO US AND SO CRITICIZE JOHN SALZA
I can affirm the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus alongwith implicit baptism of desire etc and I do not have to become a sedevacantist. They can do the same.

JEFF MIRUS AND PHIL LAWLER DON’T HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY


Immediately after I wrote the post on Jeff Mirus (1) I posted it to Phil Lawler and Jeff Mirus. Mirus has nothing to say. Phil Lawler proclaims the literal interpretation of the dogma outside the church no salvation, as it was known for centuries

How can Jeff Mirus respond to that post  ?


1. I am not denying the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance. I accept them in principle. They can only be accepted in faith since we do not know any explicit case in 2012. So he cannot criticize me here.


2. He cannot say that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.He now knows that we do not know any case. So it is irrelevant to the dogma

He canot accept the literal interpretation of the dogma and cannot cite any known exceptions.He must be trying to find a way out. He would not want to be considered a traditionalist . He has been criticizing them.


His report placed on the internet has Fr.William Most criticizing Fr.Leonard Feeney for denying the baptism of desire. Now Jeff Mirus knows that the baptism of desire is irrelevant to the literal interpretation of the dogma.Will he pull down that post? If knowingly he keeps it on the internet he is telling everyone a lie.

The real issue is : does Jeff Mirus hold the same position on the dogma as the SSPX Chapter statement (July 19,2012). Is he saying that there is no salvation outside the church (2) like the SSPX ?
-Lionel Andrades



1.
Jeff Mirus could be asked if he knows anyone saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire in 2012. If he does not, then how can the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance be an exception to Fr. Leonard Feeney?


2.
For this reason it seems opportune that we reaffirm our faith in the Roman Catholic Church, the unique Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation nor possibility to find the means leading to salvation...-SSPX  (July 19,2012) Emphasis added.

A new theory of evolution ?

A new theory of evolution ? The ape devolved from man in a degenerate species ?
See the eyes of these monkeys.

‘Gorgeous’ New Monkey Discovered in Africa

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/09/gorgeous-new-monkey-discovered-in-africa/