Monday, January 21, 2013

Peter Vere makes the same mistake



If there are apples in a box and there is also an orange then the orange is an exception because of its colour. It is also an exception because it exists.


If it did not exist it would not be an exception.


Similarly if there was a group of boys standing in one place and all of them are tall except for one, the one who is short, is an exception also because he is there.He exists there.

So the baptism of desire cannot be an exception to the dogma since there are no known cases, there is no visible case. It does not exist explicitly for us.

We accept the baptism of desire in principle, it is a possibility, known only to God but it cannot be an exception.Since an exception would mean there is one known person on earth in 2013 who is saved without the baptism of water, or who does not have to be a visible member of the Church to convert.It would mean such a person exists.But we don't know any such person?

If one says there are exceptions to something then it is implied that something must exist to be an exception. This is common knowledge.

Here is the canonist Peter Vere making the same mistake.
While not wishing to engage in this controversy, Msgr. Perl clearly confirms that Fr. Feeney died in full communion with the Church, and that several of his spiritual descendants who hold his same doctrinal interpretations are in full communion with the Church. Such a statement is clearly within the mission of the PCED as this commission was established by Pope John Paul II to oversee the reconciliation and well-being of traditionalists within the Church.


On that note, the evidence is clear: while the position held by Fr. Feeney and his spiritual descendants may be controversial, holding these positions does not, in itself, place one outside of the Catholic Church. In short, it is clear from the Church’s current pastoral and canonical practice that the Church considers this an internal controversy, and that she acknowledges the good standing of most of those who uphold a restrictive interpretation of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, baptism of blood and baptism of desire.
Pete Vere, JCL


He assumes that the Catechism of the Catholic Church contradicts the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. He assumes that the baptism of desire is really an exception since for him these cases exist in the present times, they are real and known personally.This is implied when someone says the baptism of desire is an exception.

Peter Vere writes 'while the position held by Fr. Feeney and his spiritual descendants may be controversial...'.Its controversial for him.Since he assumes Fr.Leonard Feeney's communities reject the baptism of desire defacto, in real life. For him the baptism of desire is always explicit and known.
 
There is no concept of in principle baptism of desire for Peter Vere. Otherwise he could say that the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Fr.Leonard Feeney's communities refer to the baptism of desire as a possibility, accepted in principle only.It is explicit only for God.
Similarly in two theological papers of the International Theological Commission it is assumed that those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This error was overlooked by all.


The Baptism of Desire is always a possibility and never an exception

The Church accepts the baptism of desire but never says it is explicit. Only the International Theological Commission(ITC) makes this claim.The ITC documents are non binding. They are not magisterial documents.The ITC makes the error of assuming that the implicit-to-us salvation is visible and so an exception to Fr.Leonard Feeney.The same error of Peter Vere.-Lionel Andrades