These are follow up comments on Steve Speray's blog:
From Pope Pius XII to Pope Francis they all have been using an irrational premise in the interpretation of magisterial texts.
For instance the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257 says God is not limited to the Sacraments and also the Church knows of no means to eternal beatifude other than the baptism of water. This is a contradiction.It contradicts the Principle of Non Contradiction.
SPERAY REPLIES: You left out “ASSURES” which is the key word, but it doesn’t contradict anything. The fact that you say such foolishness means you don’t know the Catholic Faith. You’ve created a religion in your head thinking it’s Catholic. IT’S NOT. It’s Lionelism.
Here it says all need the baptism of water for salvation in the present times.
1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation...
Then it says that for some, in the present times, baptism is not necessary for salvation i.e those who are in ignorance. (Note :the baptism of water can only be given in the present times. So we are not referring to a hypothetical case here)
for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.
Then once again it says that the baptism of water is defacto necessary. This would mean every one in 2014 needs the baptism of water.
The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude
Then it refers to some who do not need the baptism of water defacto. They are those who do not have the means of being baptised. In other words we defacto know where the necessity of means and precept can be applied. This is not just the prerogative of Jesus to judge. Seemingly even we can judge.
that all who can be baptized
Then comes the cream of the double speak and assuming hypothethical cases are defacto visible to us in the present times.
God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.
God has bound salvation to the sacrament of baptism in the present times but every one does not need the Sacrament of baptism in the present times.
Apparently Cardinal Ratzinger personally knew of a defacto exception, a person who would be going to Heaven without the baptism of water.This line is contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction.
Here is the complete text of CCC 1257.
1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.
How can you say that de facto God is not limited to the Sacraments and also say God is limited to the Sacraments for salvation?
SPERAY: NO ONE SAID GOD WAS LIMITED TO THE SACRAMENTS FOR SALVATION. You’ve assumed it.
Please see the text (comment) above.I have quoted the text of CCC 1257 for you.
This error was not corrected by Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI. Pope Francis has also accepted it as have all the cardinals and bishops.
SPERAY REPLIES: They aren’t Catholic so your point is moot. However, they don’t have to correct something that’s only erroneous in your head.
They are Catholic and you are still unaware of the error since you use the same irrational premise. You too like the other sedevacantists are assume there are visible -in- Heaven exceptions to Tradition. So you are unable to correct the popes on this point, while you criticize them otherwise.
Pope Pius XII and all the popes who have followed him have accepted that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are visible to us in the present times.
SPERAY REPLIES: Another problem in your head. NO ONE SAID BOD is visible. Salvation is not visible in any respect unless it was made known in a special way by God. Which saint in heaven is visible to us?????? Answer that question.
If the baptism of desire is not visible for you then how can it be an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? If being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) is not defacto visible for you in 2014 then how can these cases be an exception or relevant to all needing the baptism of water for salvation in the present times ? Since they are exceptions for you, people in Heaven are visible to you. They are not exceptions for me.So it does not apply to me.
Which saint in heaven is visible to us?????? Answer that question.
For me there is nothing in Vatican Council II or the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which contradicts the dogma. So they do not have to be visible to me. Can you say the same ? Vatican Council II does not contradict Tradition? The Baptism of desire mentioned in the Letter of the Holy Office is not an exception to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney?
They would have to be visible and known to us to be explicit exceptions to the traditional interpretation of Fr. Leonard Feeney.
SPERAY REPLIES: Feeney’s error was that he believed in Baptism of Desire, but such a justified person wouldn’t go to heaven or hell.
So what if Fr.Leonard Feeney believed in a baptism of desire ? What has the baptism of desire to do with the dogma ? If it results in salvation or justification it would be known only to God, in a particular case. We do not know of any such particular case to judge if it results in justification or does not.We do not know the name of any such person.
He said he doesn’t know where such a person would go.
And you know of some such case ? And where this person will go ?
In other words, Feeney believe that person could be justified WITHOUT baptism, but he still wouldn’t go to heaven. YOU DON’T THE TRUTH ABOUT FEENEY! I’ve read everything he taught.
You know someone in your diocese who will go to Heaven without the baptism of water but with the baptism of desire?
We have it here once. Defacto every one needs to enter the Church ( extra ecclesiam nulla salus) but some do not have to enter the Church for salvation?
SPERAY REPLIES: WRONG! Everyone needs to enter the Church but not formally.
Every one needs to be a member of the Catholic Church, according to the dogma.
Every one needs 'faith and baptism' according to Vatican Council II (AG 7).
You can only be a member of the Church formally. You can choose to be a member of the Catholic Church with 'faith and baptism'
You cannot choose to become a member of the Church with the baptism of desire or blood. Since these are graces given and known only to God.
Do you know of any exceptions? This year or the last few years ?
You’ve assumed formally, but no pope or council ever taught it. Pope St. Pius X taught that men can be saved without baptism. So did Pope ST. Pius V, and every pope since Trent.
Neither does Mystici Corporis of Pope Pius XII or the Council of Trent say that we know of any one who can be saved without the baptism of water or that the baptism of desire will not be followed by the baptism of water.The text does not say it. You have to assume that it is refers to a visible- for- us baptism of desire or, a baptism of desire which excludes the baptism of water.
Remember, I asked you to quote me any such text and you could not.You could not cite any pope, saint or Church document before 1949.Since there is no precedent.
The popes have been interpreting magisterial documents with this inference of being able to see in heaven and on earth people who are saved with the baptism of desire etc.They can see the dead ?! It is with this irrationality that theology produces heretical results. The liberals accept the result and the traditionalists and sedevacantists reject it.
SPERAY REPLIES: No pope has ever implied even by inference of being able to see the dead. You personal made-up theology is a lie.
When a pope, traditionalist or sedevacantist says there are defacto exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus it is being inferred that these exceptions are visible to us ( though dead) and so they are exceptions. They are exceptions since they are known.If they were not within our reality they would not be exceptions.
Sedevancantism is unfortunate. They use the same irrational premise which changes doctrine and theology. It is the same error being made by the popes.Sedevacantists have only have to avoid the inference in the interpretation of magisterial documents, example Vatican Council II, and the result is traditional.
SPERAY REPLIES: This statement is so silly, it’s not worth responding to.
Some time back I listed 10 questions 1 regarding this issue. You ignored those questions. Possibly you did not understand the concept.
If you understood the concept and could answer those questions you would realize that there is no rational basis for sedevacantism with respect to Vatican Council II . Since without the irrational inference, which you now use, the Council is in agreement with the Syllabus of Errors and the rest of Tradition.There is nothing to contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in Vatican Council II.So the traditional ecclesiology and teaching on ecumenism and other religions would not have changed.
No one has yet explained this to Pope Francis. This irrationality has been the hallmark of the Jesuits since the time they expelled Fr.Leonard Feeney from their community.
SPERAY REPLIES: You don’t know the Catholic Faith, and you don’t know Feeney. You’ve simply created a religion that exist only in your head. Do us all a favor and stop spreading Lionelism in comment sections. Keep it on your own blog.
You at least are in no postion to explain it the pope. You first have to decide if the baptism of desire and all references to salvation can be considered visible or invisible for us. If you consider these cases as being exceptions to Tradition then you are implying (whether you know it or not) that they are visible for you. You have decided.
So who is going to point this error to the popes ? Not you.Like the other sedevacantists you will reject Vatican Council II, which you look at superficially.You assume possibilities (LG 16,LG 8,UR 3,NA 2 etc) are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Tradition, when they are not. Since possibilities cannot be defacto exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation in the present times.
Feast of St.Francis Xavier.
The Social Reign of Jesus Christ has been made obsolete with alleged salvation outside the Catholic Church known to us
From Pope Pius XII to Pope Francis they all have been using an irrational premise in the interpretation of magisterial texts