Paul :
Regarding your comments about baptism of desire being physically invisible, it is understood by all that only God knows where it applies.
Regarding your comments about baptism of desire being physically invisible, it is understood by all that only God knows where it applies.
Lionel:
I repeat once again that I am not referring to theology.
Physically invisible means that we cannot physically see a case on earth who has been saved with the baptism of desire. There is no explicit defacto case.
So if these cases are not physically visible on earth how can they be explicit exceptions to all needing the baptism of water (physically) in the present times 2014)?
You have not answered the TWO QUESTIONS which are related to this point.
______________________________
Paul:
The teachings of the Church on the subject don't squabble over and over about whether baptism of desire is physically visible or not - it simply teaches that it's possible to have the grace of the Sacrament of baptism supplied this way in rare cases, and therefore that the faithful must believe it. It's that simple. You are getting hung up on things that the Church has not even taught.
Lionel:
I am not referring to theology.
However when you say that the baptism of desire is an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney it is you who are implying that these cases are physically visible to be exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.You imply this.Then you build your theology upon this irrationality.First there is a false premise and then there is the claim of explicit exceptions.
______________________________
Paul:
You also keep talking about people claiming to see dead people that have been saved with baptism of desire etc. Nowhere do we see this in any Church teaching and you sound like you have lost your sanity for even mentioning it.
Paul:
You also keep talking about people claiming to see dead people that have been saved with baptism of desire etc. Nowhere do we see this in any Church teaching and you sound like you have lost your sanity for even mentioning it.
Lionel:
When you state that the baptism of desire is an explicit exception to all needing to be baptized with water in the present times, with no exception, you are implying, inferring, suggesting that there are known exceptions.In other words the deceased-saved are visible exceptions.It is because of this irrationality that I have to address this subject and talk in terms of physically visible and physically invisible.
Paul:
As for the AAS, Canon law clearly states that not all is published in it: Under Canon 9, "Laws laid down by the Apostolic See are promulgated by publication in the official commentary Acta Apostolicae Sedis [Acts of the Apostolic See], unless in particular cases another mode of promulgation has been prescribed."
Lionel:
However the fact is that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 did not have the signature of the Secretary and was not placed in the Acta Apostolic Sedis and so when Fr.Karl Rahner S.J placed it in the Denzinger he used the citation of the American Ecclesiastical Review.Even after this the Secretary did not approve the Letter.
Paul:
Your comments on Archbishop Cushing are completely fabricated. Archbishop Cushing received a letter from the Holy Office stating that Pope Pius XII approved of it, and stating that he must publish it, which he did. Therefore this was not just an interoffice memo that Pope Pius XII didn't see. Let's say for argument's sake that Pope Pius XII didn't see the "internal memo". When it was published globally saying that Pope Pius XII DID in fact see and fully approved of it and its publication, he certainly saw it then. He reigned for another 6 years after it was globally published. At that point if Pope Pius XII truly didn't approve of this letter that was making the rounds globally, he would have publicly denounced the letter, and would have publicly denounced Archbishop Cushing for publishing a heretical letter, and for publishing a lie stating that Pope Pius XII approved. It would have been the biggest scandal in the Catholic Church and people would still be talking about it to this day. As we know, none of this happened because Pope Pius XII indeed did fully approve of the letter from the Holy Office.
Lionel:
Paul:
Your comments on Archbishop Cushing are completely fabricated. Archbishop Cushing received a letter from the Holy Office stating that Pope Pius XII approved of it, and stating that he must publish it, which he did. Therefore this was not just an interoffice memo that Pope Pius XII didn't see. Let's say for argument's sake that Pope Pius XII didn't see the "internal memo". When it was published globally saying that Pope Pius XII DID in fact see and fully approved of it and its publication, he certainly saw it then. He reigned for another 6 years after it was globally published. At that point if Pope Pius XII truly didn't approve of this letter that was making the rounds globally, he would have publicly denounced the letter, and would have publicly denounced Archbishop Cushing for publishing a heretical letter, and for publishing a lie stating that Pope Pius XII approved. It would have been the biggest scandal in the Catholic Church and people would still be talking about it to this day. As we know, none of this happened because Pope Pius XII indeed did fully approve of the letter from the Holy Office.
I have mentioned in my last e-mail that even if Pope Pius XII did not directly read the Letter he condoned it over time.Perhaps it was for political reasons.
Paul:
Your claim that EENS has been defined by the Church but that baptism of desire hasn't (implying that it must be defined), shows you don't know your faith Lionel.
Paul:
Your claim that EENS has been defined by the Church but that baptism of desire hasn't (implying that it must be defined), shows you don't know your faith Lionel.
Lionel:
I have not said this.
I have said that I accept the baptism of desire. I accept implicit for us baptism of desire and reject explicit for us baptism of desire.
Since the baptism of desire, is invisible for us it is not an explicit exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. I don't have a problem with the baptism of desire. Since invisible for us baptism of desire does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction. I accept the 'rigorist interpretation' of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, along with the baptism of desire(implicit).
I think all religious communities, and all Catholics, can accept implicit for us baptism of desire along with the traditional 'rigorist interpretation' of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Those who offer the Novus Ordo Mass and the Traditional Latin Mass can affirm the dogma on exclusive salvation, in agreement with Vatican Council II and in agreement with implicit for us baptism of desire.It does not have to be an either/or choice as your website suggests.It's either/or for you since you consider the baptism of desire as physically explicit.
Paul:
First, baptism of desire is clearly defined by the Council of Trent, and numerous Doctors of the Church and other sources state so.
Lionel:
Yes and I accept the baptism of desire(implicit).None of the definitions of the baptism of desire state that it is explicit for us.No saint or pope has said that the baptism of desire is objectively seen. And this is what counts in this discussion. Since it would have to be objectively seen to be an exception to Tradition and the old ecclesiology. Presently there is no visible case of salvation outside the Church.
Paul:
But putting that aside for a moment, past popes have made it clear that nothing needs to be solemnly defined by the Church, yet if it is taught by the magisterium of the Church elsewhere (which baptism of desire has been for the entire history of the Church), it must still be equally believed by the faithful. Are you aware of this Lionel? Here are some quotes on this:
Pope Pius IX in his Letter to Archbishop Scherr of Munich in 1863:
"We desire to reassure ourselves that they did not mean to limit the obligation, which strictly binds Catholic teachers and writers, to those things only which are proposed by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith to be believed by everybody. In a like manner, We are convinced that it was not their intention to state that the perfect adherence to revealed truths (which they regard as absolutely necessary for true progress in science and for refuting errors) can be maintained, if the submission of faith is given only to those dogmas expressly defined by the Church. The reason for this is the following: even supposing that we are treating of that subjection which is to be made by an explicit act of divine faith, this must not be limited to those things which have been defined in the express decrees of the ecumenical councils or of the Roman Pontiffs of this See; but it must also be extended to those things which, through the ordinary teaching of the whole Church throughout the world, are proposed as divinely revealed and, as a result, by universal and constant consent of Catholic theologians are held to be matters of faith. "
Pope Pius XII in his encyclical, Humani Generis, in 1950 (Denz. 2313):
"It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: "He who heareth you, heareth me." [Luke 10:16]; and usually what is set forth and inculcated in the Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due consideration, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter, it is clear to all that this matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among the theologians."
Lionel:I accept the baptism of desire.So the quotations above do not apply to me.I do not infer that that these cases saved in Heaven are exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.For me the baptism of desire is implicit.For you it probably is explicit.For me it is hypothetical.For you it is known in realty.For me it is acceptable subjectively .For you it is seen objectively otherwise why would it be an exception to the dogma ?.
Paul:he dogma?
The real clincher is, you state the letter from the Holy Office is heretical, and at the same time you are also stating that Pope Pius XII condoned it.
Lionel:
The Letter of the Holy Office in the first part supports Fr.Leonard Feeney on doctrine.It affirms the traditional teaching of the Church on the dogma. In the second half it criticizes Fr.Leonard Feeney for discipline.However you say on your website that the Letter criticizes Fr.Leonard Feeney for doctrine and that the baptism of desire is an exception to the traditional interpretation.This would be heresy.There is an exception defacto and known to the traditional interpretation of the popes and Church Councils? .
You are implying that Fr.Leonard Feeney is heretical for holding the traditional view and not claiming he could see or know cases saved with the baptism of desire. You are also saying that there is known salvation outside the Church.
You are implying that Fr.Leonard Feeney is heretical for holding the traditional view and not claiming he could see or know cases saved with the baptism of desire. You are also saying that there is known salvation outside the Church.
You are changing the meaning of a defined dogma and the Nicene Creed ( I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin). This is first class heresy on your part. It is a rejection of a defined dogma and the dogma on the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra.
Your view about there being explicit exceptions, anyway, is the general understanding of the Letter of the Holy Office in the secular media.Sadly no pope or cardinal has issued a correction since the time of Pope Pius XII.
If any one, be it a friend or relative, claims he can see the dead, I would reject it. Since this is irrational.This is contrary to common sense even if a pope suggests it.It is also heresy for any Catholic to reject a defined dogma with alleged exceptions.And that too, exceptions whom he cannot name or identify in the present times.
Paul:
You are accusing Pope Pius XII of heresy by doing so Lionel. The fact that you have the audacity to accuse a true Vicar of Christ of heresy, claiming that you know better than he did, and that you are here to save the Church from the error that he allowed to propagate globally, shows you have have completely lost your faith Lionel.
Lionel:
My Catholic Faith says there are no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Common sense tells us that we cannot see the dead-saved on earth and so they cannot be exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma. Your website states the very opposite.It cites Pope Pius XII to justify this heresy.
_________________________________________________________
Paul:
All of this talk that you repeatedly throw at me about the deceased-saved, the physically visible, the physically invisible, rejecting "explicit" baptism of desire, etc. etc., is ALL nonsense.
Lionel:
I understand that this is the first time ever that you are exposed to this. For some 70 years a new doctrine is being taught in the Church and those who have opposed it have been silenced out of obedience or neglect.What I have to say here is not original.
It's also not popular.
When you state that the baptism of desire is an explicit exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus it is YOU who are saying that deceased- saved are physically visible on earth. So I have to speak in terms of visible (for you) and invisible( for me) baptism of desire.
Paul:
You are creating a dilemma in your head where there is no dilemma.
Lionel:
The dilemma was created in 1949 at Boston when it was assumed there was known salvation outside the visible limits of the Church.
Paul:
This dilemma that you keep speaking of, again, is not mentioned in Church teaching;
Lionel:
It is inferred when you say that the baptism of desire is an exception to all needing the baptism of water ( defacto) for salvation.You create the dilemma.
Paul:
the Church makes no distinctions with all of these things you are talking about, and it is not something we see discussed between theologians. Nobody is worried about it but you.
Lionel:
There are many good Catholics who understand perfectly what I am saying but in public they do not want to affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They will not even affirm Vatican Council II ( without the irrational premise) in accord with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus while they prefer to only criticize Vatican Council II ( with the irrational inference), while not mentioning the inference as the cause of the break with Tradition.They want someone else to do the 'needful'.
Paul:
You are creating creating a dilemma where a dilemma does not exist, and you are wasting my time by trying to get me to discuss it. I am not going to spend time discussing a dilemma that is only formed in your own head.
Lionel:
You have not answered the TWO QUESTIONS I asked you. They are rational questions.Curiously, even the sedevacantists are not answering it.
Paul:
TRUST the Catholic Church - she is infallible, and what she teaches on baptism of desire and blood is what we must believe, period.
Lionel:
Precisely. Trust the Church. The Church teaches the baptism of desire in its official texts. I accept it. The Church does not state that the baptism of desire is explict or that it is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This claim is not made in Vatican Councl II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I accept this too. All magisterial documents affirm the dogma as defined by three Church Councils. I accept this. There is no official retraction of extra ecclesiam nulla salus by the Church. I accept this too.
You, Cardinal Cushing and Cardinal Francesco Marchetti-Selvaggiani claim there are known, visible in the flesh exceptions to the dogma defined three times. I reject this.
I affirm magisterial documents which uphold the traditional interpretaion of extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( which you reject with alleged exceptions in the present times).I uphold implicit for us baptism of desire.This is rational. This is traditional. It does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction.It is the Deposit of the Faith.
Paul:
Stop digging and investigating and questioning what the Church has already ruled on - it's heresy to do so.
Lionel:
I accept the dogma according to the Council of Florence 1441 and I accept implicit for us baptism of desire.So how can you say I am in heresy.Vatican Council II (AG 7) endorses it.
Paul:
As for Father Feeney, the letter from the Holy Office clearly states he was being
reprimanded for challenging doctrine. The letter clearly states, "Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a "Defender of the Faith," and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities...".
Lionel:
This is a factual error.There is no explicit for us baptism of desire. Implicit for us baptism of desire cannot be an explicit exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney. A hypotethical case cannot be a defacto exception. This is elementary reasoning.You indicate that the Letter of the Holy Office, an inter office communiction from one bishop to another,has made an objective mistake.The Letter indicates here that the deceased now saved in Heaven are defacto exceptions on earth, to all needing faith and baptism for salvation.We can see ghosts who are exceptions to a de fide teaching?
Paul:
He was blatantly challenging a traditional teaching of the church, and that is why they summoned him to Rome. His excommunication was not just a matter of disobedience - the underlying cause was a denial of the teaching of the Church.
Lionel:
If he was a heretic then so were the Church Fathers, Church Councils, the popes, the saints and the Church Fathers who gave us Vatican Council II (AG 7).He was saying the same thing. There was nothing new which he was teaching.
Jesus has said that all need the baptism of water for salvation (John 3.5) and you are saying 'Not all.Since there are visible, known exceptions saved this year, whom I cannot name'.Jesus has said that those who do not believe will be condemned(Mk.16:16).You are saying that not every one who does not believe in 2014 will be condemned since you could meet someone saved ( in Heaven) with the baptism of desire, who of course, is an exception to Jesus' teaching.
Paul:
You have declared Pope Pius XII a heretic
Lionel:
I am in no position to 'declare' any one a heretic and that too a pope !. I am saying that we cannot with our physical eyes see the deceased saved in Heaven. This is common knowledge. This unfortunately is the premise used by Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani who issued this inter office communication.It did not have the seal of the Secretary of the Holy Office and was not placed in the Acta Apostolica Sedis. Also its hasty and confusing style indicate it could not be an official document but something written spontaneously.Mysteriously it was kept hidden and then suddenly made public three years after it was issued. Also the same errors which Cardinal Cushing condoned,in 1949, he and the Jesuits tried to place in Vatican Council II ,where they were active.He never lifted the excommunication of Fr.Leonard Feeney even though there were no known, visible exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma.
Paul:
- you have lost your faith and there is nothing more therefore that we need to discuss. Pope Pius XII's approval of the decision outlined in the letter of the Holy Office coincides with all past Church teaching on the subject which I have summarized on my website, including teaching from several past popes.
Lionel:
None of the quotations have said that the baptism of desire is explicit for us and so an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.You cannnot cite a single pope or saint who has made this inference, which you make.
Paul:
Pope Saint Pius X for example. You are condemning all of them.
Lionel:
Pope St.Pius X no where has said that the baptism of desire is explicit and is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.They all took it for granted that the baptism of desire is invisible for us and known only to God.They have only mentioned the baptism of desire. You have made the inference.
Paul:
You tell me out of one side of your mouth that you believe in baptism of desire,
Lionel:
Implicit for us baptism of desire.Only.
Paul:
and then you deny it through the other side of your mouth.
Lionel:
Explicit for us baptism of desire is denied. Only.
Paul:
You're not fooling anyone Lionel, and you are in a very dangerous state.
Lionel:
Why are you finding those two questions difficult ? Even when I put those two questions to liberals , cardinals and bishops they refuse to answer me.
I suggest that you take your time. Discuss this with your friends. This is a lot of new material for you and it is contradicting what you believed in (explicit for us baptism of desire) in good faith.-Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment