Sunday, December 21, 2014

This is not theology


Brother Andre Marie MICM:
"There is no operative theological principle," you say.
Lionel:
How can I say that the dead are visible to us on earth and then build a theological or philosophical principle ?
How can I say that we humans know of cases of persons saved with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance and so every one does not need to enter the Church or everyone needs to enter the Church ?. This would be wrong at the onset.
So all I am saying  is : the dead who are now in Heaven are not physically visible to us on earth.This is my proposition, my premise.Cases of the baptism of desire ( with or without the baptism of water) are not visible to us humans on earth.
If your premise  is the opposite (the dead are visible) and then you create a theological principle ,it  would be irrational.
______________________________________

 Moreover, "Neither is there a standard philosophical principle I am drawing upon." Rather, you are drawing upon empirical observation without the benefit of sound philosophical or theological principles.
Lionel:
I cannot see the dead.Humans in general cannot see the dead. Even a non Catholic or a young boy would say that they could not see the dead who are now  in Heaven. What has this to do with theology or philosophy?
______________________________________
You have proven my point, namely, that you have introduced an anomalous and inappropriate empiricism into theology. It will convince nobody with a solid theological formation. Moreover, it is bad theology.
Lionel:
Again I repeat it is not theology.
_________________________________________
I could use your methodology to prove that Lutheran Consubstantiation does not contradict the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation, since the presence of both bread and Christ in the Holy Eucharist is unknown to us, being empirically unverifiable.
Lionel:
This is not theology. I cannot see the dead in 2014 who are saved and are now in Heaven. Period.There are no cases of the baptism of desire physically visible to me on earth.
So when I am confronted with theology which says that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma it is irrational theology.It is based on an objective error.
In faith, as the Church teaches  I would accept the baptism of desire (with the baptism of water). As a possibility known to God it is acceptable.But defacto. in real life I cannot see any such case. So it is irrelevant to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
We are not assuming that  Transubstantiation is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Why do you mention it here?
In general, liberals and traditionalists and the Magisterium infer that the baptism of desire is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, this is their theology.
________________________________

 (Then again, Christ's own presence there, without the substance of bread, is also empirically unverifiable. Hence the merit of Faith.) But supernatural mysteries cannot be so easily dealt with by the "scientific method."
Lionel:
In faith I accept the possibility of the baptism of desire followed with the baptism of water resulting in salvation and in faith I accept the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
I do not infer or claim that empirically either of the two are exceptions to the dogma.
____________________________
Of the two propositions you lay down, I would accept the second — though I would have to reword it in a more cogent way.
Lionel:
Thank you.
We agree here. Could you rephrase it and send it to me? Please let me know what is acceptable to you.
____________________________________________
 But my accepting it does not take us very far in theology, since it relies on emp irical observation as its lynchpin.
Lionel:
Are you saying that you also cannot see the dead in Heaven now saved with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance followed with the baptism of water ? And so are you rejecting the common theology which suggests that these cases are empirical, objective exceptions to the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney ?
I know with theology you say that the baptism of desire is followed with the baptism of water and so it is not an exception to the dogma. I am not referring to this.
Are you saying that objectively we cannot see any case of the baptism of desire and so the baptism of desire cannot be an objective exception to traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus.?
_____________________________________

 If you reduced it to a logical syllogism, your major premise would likely be atheological, as is your approach in general.

Lionel

Could you please answer the two questions?
I asked Mr. Louis Tofari,of the SSPX USA to please let me know the SSPX position on these two questions.
TWO QUESTIONS

1) Do we personally know the dead now saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc,can we see them, are they physically visible to us in 2014 ?
2) Since we do not know any of these cases, in real life, they are not visible for us, there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, or Ad Gentes 7 which states 'all' need 'faith and baptism' for salvation ?
 Is the answer YES or NO?

Louis Tofari responded :,


 

The SSPX simply follows the teachings of the Catholic Church, so we do
not have our own opinion on this matter.


In response I  e-mailed him:

Thank you for your response.
1.So you would say that the Church teaches and the SSPX accepts it that we personally know the dead now saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc, we can see them, they are physically visible to us in 2014. So we do know of these cases in real  life , they are visible for us,they are known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and to Ad Gentes 7 which states 'all' need 'faith and baptism'for salvation.
2.You would also say that that the Church does not teach ,and the SSPX accepts this ,that we personallydo not know the dead now saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc, we cannot  see them, they are physically not visible to us in 2014. So we do not know of these cases in real life , they are not visible for us,there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and to Ad Gentes 7 which states 'all' need 'faith and baptism'for salvation.
 
There is no answer from him yet . How would you answer the two questions?
-Lionel Andrades

http://catholicism.org/ad-rem-no-239.html

7 comments:

Brother André Marie, M.I.C.M. said...

There could not be a more accurate title to your posting, Mr. Andrades.

Mr. Tofari probably has as little time as have I to entertain your non-theological musings about the invisible dead.

My line of questioning accomplished what I set out to do: namely, to establish that you are not operating from sound principles, but, rather, from some kind of empiricism as the basis of your speculations.

George Brenner said...


From the Catechism of St. Pius X issued in 1908:

27 Q: Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church?

A: No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church.

28 Q: How, then, were the Patriarchs of old, the Prophets, and the other just men of the Old Testament, saved?

A: The just of the Old Testament were saved in virtue of the faith they had in Christ to come, by means of which they spiritually belonged to the Church.

29 Q: But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?

A: If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Notice the four "if's mentioned in this answer not to mention the fact that Catholic Church whenever, always and without exception if at all possible teach and explain to this person that there is no Salvation outside the Catholic Church. The devil has used the possible mercies of God to completely undermine centuries of teaching.

George Brenner

Catholic Mission said...

There could not be a more accurate title to your posting, Mr. Andrades.

Mr. Tofari probably has as little time as have I to entertain your non-theological musings about the invisible dead.
Lionel:
Brother Andre Marie it about two year now since I have been asking you fundamental questions about the Catholic Faith. It is not just overnight in this report.
__________________________


My line of questioning accomplished what I set out to do: namely, to establish that you are not operating from sound principles, but, rather, from some kind of empiricism as the basis of your speculations.
Lionel:
I repeat: when I say that I cannot see the dead on earth or we humans in general cannot see the dead I am not going to create a theology or philosophy which says exactly that.

You have done this.

For you Lumen Gentium 16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance) is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as interpreted by Fr.Leonard Feeney.

So you are inferring that those who have died in invincible ignorance, are exceptions, to the dogma this year. They are known to you.So Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma. This is your theological principle based on your alleged ability to see the dead who are exceptions.
Based on an irrationality you have created a theology.
I refuse to do this.
_______________________

Catholic Mission said...

George:

Notice the four "if's mentioned in this answer not to mention the fact that Catholic Church whenever, always and without exception if at all possible teach and explain to this person that there is no Salvation outside the Catholic Church. The devil has used the possible mercies of God to completely undermine centuries of teaching.

Lionel:
Yes I notice the 'if'.
So it is assumed that this hypothetical case is a known exception to the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
Then they say that Pope Pius X in his Catechism says there are exceptions to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
The Catechism of Pope Pius X does not state that there are defacto exceptions!.

Yet this is how even the traditionalists wrongly interpret the Catechism of Pope Pius X.

Catholic Mission said...

George:
“BISHOP BERNARD FELLAY MADE A DOCTRINAL ERROR : CONTRADICTS CATECHISM OF POPE PIUS X

27 Q. Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church?A. No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church.-Catechism of Pope Pius X 1905,Rome.

29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation. -Catechism of Pope Pius X, Rome 1905

Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior General of the Society of St.Pius (SSPX) made a doctrinal error by confusing implicit for us baptism of desire as being explicit for us. What is invisible for us he implies is visible in the flesh.

In the Catechism of Pope Pius X 27 Q states no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. In 29 Q it mentions that a person can be saved under certain conditions with the baptism of desire but does not state that these cases are visible for us.It does not state that 29C contradicts 27 Q and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Reason tells us that the baptism of desire can only be hypothetical for us. It is not known defacto, in reality, in personal cases.

Bishop Bernard Fellay has assumed that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus implying that these cases are personally and objectively known. Only if they are objectively known can they be exceptions in the present times.

So he had approved a book written by Fr.Francois Laisney and sold by the SSPX(District N.America) titled Is Feeneyism Catholic? (Angelus Press) in which it is assumed that the baptism of desire is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. In other words it is explicit.

Then on the SSPX official website he has approved articles on two web pages written by Fr.Francois Laisney and Fr.Joseph Pfieffer ( now SSPX-SOS) with the same objective error. It is assumed that we can physically see cases of the baptism of desire for them to be exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation and also to 27 Q of the Catechism of Pope Pius X.It is common knowledge that objectively we cannot see the dead who are in Heaven...

http://protectthepope.com/?p=10239

Brother André Marie, M.I.C.M. said...

Mr. Andrades,

This is my last posting here. You replied to my previous comment with these words, "This is your theological principle based on your alleged ability to see the dead who are exceptions."

This is a deplorable misrepresentation of my position, that of Father Feeney, and of Saint Benedict Center.

It is one thing to advance your own position (with which I disagree). It is quite another to set up a straw man in the person you are attempting to refute.

I ask that, in the future, you refrain from attributing to me any position unless you can cite my actual words on the subject.

Catholic Mission said...

This is my last posting here. You replied to my previous comment with these words, "This is your theological principle based on your alleged ability to see the dead who are exceptions."

This is a deplorable misrepresentation of my position, that of Father Feeney, and of Saint Benedict Center.

Lionel:
Dear Brother Andre Marie,
On you website I asked you if Lumen Gentium 16 is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or is it not?
You did not answer.
If you are saying that LG 16 is an exception then you imply that you know of a person/persons saved in invincible ignorance( with or without the baptism of water). There would have to be persons known to you as such.Otherwise how could there be exceptions ?
These people saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire would be in Heaven. So how could they be exceptions? Unless you can see the dead on earth.
_____________________

Secondly I provided you two links in which the apologist John Martigioni says zero cases of something cannot be exceptions.
You would not comment.

I quoted you John Martigioni saying that the baptism of desire cannot be an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, in the sense, that these cases are not humanly visible on earth.
You would not comment.
________________________


It is one thing to advance your own position (with which I disagree). It is quite another to set up a straw man in the person you are attempting to refute.

I ask that, in the future, you refrain from attributing to me any position unless you can cite my actual words on the subject.

Lionel:
Please clarify the issue on your blog where you have prevented me from commenting.I will quote you here.
1) What is your position on Lumen Gentium 16 with respective to extra ecclesiam nulla salus? Does Vatican Council II contradict the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney?
2) What is your position on the statement of the apologist John Martigioni?
3) How would you asnwer the two questions I asked you?