Saturday, December 13, 2014

I accept Christ in the Catholic Church and according to the traditional teachings of the Church, the traditional Magisterium which is supported by Vatican Council II

Today's comments are in this colour.
 
What you call meaningless to you is the teaching of the Church.
Lionel:
For something to be an exception it must exist and it must be different.
EXCEPTION TO WHAT?
Lionel:
Exception to what is common, or what is the majority or what is the norm.
_________________________________________
Lionel:
If there is an orange in a box of apples then that orange is an exception.It exists there in that box so it is an exception.
If any pope, cardinal or bishop says that the baptism of desire or being saved in invincible ignorance
No one is saved in invincible ignorance. Baptism of Desire is the infusion of faith.
Lionel:
I am not referring here to theology.I am referrring to an empirical observation. I am referring to something physical.It is a reference to something objective and not theology.I am referring to the laws of physics, visibility, sight, light, matter, space.
________________________________________
( without the baptism of water) exists in our reality then it is to be rejected.
Wrong. It is to be accepted that men can be saved without water in exceptional cases.
Lionel:
I am referring to something physical and not to theology.
______________________________________
Since in general we cannot with our physical eyes see any one in Heaven. They would have to exist physically in our reality. It is then that we can say, "Hey look at this guy. He lives down the road. He was saved with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water.
He is an exception to the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church on the neccessity of faith and the baptism of water for all".
Necessity of precept, not of means. It's meaningless to you because you haven't understood what it means.
Lionel:
Again, I am referring to something physical. You are talking in terms of theology.We will then have to be on different wavelengths.
________________________________________
Or you would say,"Meet my aunt. She is such a wonderful person.God told her she would be saved in invincible ignorance and so she does not have to convert into the Catholic Church.She is an exception to the Feeneyite concept of extra ecclesiam nulla salus".
Wrong again. You have a total misunderstanding of the Catholic doctrine of BOD. Conversion to the Catholic Church is what BOD does. No one is saved outside of the Church. BOD brings one into the Church at death.
Lionel:
Again you are looking at it with theology and I am not.
________________________________________
So this was the error made by 'the Church' in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 . They assumed that we could physically see a person on earth who would be saved without the baptism of water and so Fr.Leonard Feeney was wrong.
Wrong yet again. That's not what the 1949 letter says at all. That's your personal Protestant style of interpretation.
Lionel:
Here's the proof:-
the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel:
In other words they are visible and known to us. It is inferred that we can judge who is saved or going to be saved as such. Otherwise why mention 'united to the Church only by desire'? What has this to do with the dogma ? We do not know any one saved as such. Objectively there is no case. So how can what does not exist in our reality be an exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma on salvation? They assumed that we could physically see a person on earth who would be saved without the baptism of water and so Fr.Leonard Feeney was wrong.

_____________________________________

With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution, , in < Denzinger>, n. 1641 ff.; also Pope Pius IX in the encyclical letter, < Quanto conficiamur moerore>, in , n. 1677).

Lionel:
'who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire'-...Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Here the error is direct and clear. The Letter is saying that you and me must assume that the baptism of desire, a possibility for salvation, is a defacto exception in the present times, to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. In other words, Fr. Leonard Feeney was wrong ,since he was denying defacto, objective, seen in the flesh exceptions to the dogma.They assumed that we could physically see a person on earth who would be saved without the baptism of water and so Fr.Leonard Feeney was wrong

______________________________________

From what has been said it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical , fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel:

The ' periodical , fascicle 3' the magazine From the Housetops, did not state that the baptism of desire was visible and objective. For the person who wrote this Letter, these cases are objective and very real. They are personally known.Otherwise how could they be exceptions?
In other words, Fr.Leonard Feeeny and the St. Benedict Center should have said that the baptism of desire is visible to them in particular cases.

The Letter  assumed that we could physically see a person on earth who would be saved without the baptism of water and so Fr.Leonard Feeney was wrong.

______________________________________

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,...-Letter of the Holy Office 1949Lionel:
The 'catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities', ecclesiastical hierarchy in Boston,  interpreted the baptism of desire etc as being empirically visible and without the baptism of water. These hypothetical cases for  me, known only to God, it is assumed can be physically seen on earth, persons who would be saved without the baptism of water.So Fr.Leonard Feeney was wrong according to Boston.

______________________________________

Finally, it is in no wise to be tolerated that certain Catholics shall claim for themselves the right to publish a periodical, for the purpose of spreading theological doctrines, without the permission of competent Church authority...
Lionel:
The imprimatur would only be granted to those who assume that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are empirically visible to the naked eye.These people could be seen and met in Boston.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/12/gregorian-university-interprets-letter.html
_____________________________________________________________________________

This is Cushingism. Cushingism means assuming the dead who are now in Heaven are physically visible to us on earth; they exist in our reality.
NO ONE IN HEAVEN IS PHYSICALLY VISIBLE TO US ON EARTH. YOUR POINT IS MOOT.
Lionel:
Cushingism infers that there are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So the exceptions would have to be physically visible and personally known to be exceptions.Ghosts cannot be exceptions.However the 'exceptions' of Cardinal Richard Cushing were persons now in Heaven, saved with the baptism of desire.They happen to be in Heaven and they are exceptions on earth!
You are using Cushingism in the interpretation of Vatican Council II. LG 16,NA 2, UR 3 etc are exceptions to the dogma for you.
_____________________________________
Judging the cases is not up to you, it's up to the Church.
Lionel:
If you say that there are explicit exceptions to the dogma then you have judged? Someone you know does not need the baptism of water to go to Heaven ?
THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS TO DOGMAS. YOU DON'T GET IT. BAPTISM AS A NECESSITY OF MEANS IS NOT A DOGMA. BAPTISM AS A NECESSITY OF PRECEPT IS, BUT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IT SO IT'S MEANINGLESS TO YOU
Lionel:
You are repeating the SSPX position on their website and also that of the Letter of the Holy Office.
The Letter of the Holy Office begins by affirming the traditional dogma and so supports Fr.Leonard Feeney on doctrine.
The second part of the Letter assumes that implicit desire etc is visible to us and so an exception to the first part of the Letter. So they criticize Fr.Leonard Feeney.
The SSPX (USA) on its website (See Feeneyism) says every one needs to enter the Church and then also says the baptism of desire and blood are exceptions.In other words they do not need to enter the Church in the present times.This is double-speak.
 
CCC 1257 on the same line says every one needs the baptism of water for salvation but some do not. This is contarry to the Principle of Non Contradiction.It is Cushingism.
__________________________________________
 
Examples of known cases ARE THE SAINTS
Lionel:
The saints are not physically seen on earth. We believe St. Francis of Assisi is in Heaven but we cannot see him.
For there to be an exception to the dogma the case would have to be personally known or seen on earth.
THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS TO DOGMAS.
Lionel:
So you agree that those declared saints are not exceptions to the dogma.
_____________________________________
We have another interesting case here IF YOU BELIEVE THE SAINT WHO SAID SO.

A True Story concerning Baptism of Desire and the Cure’ of Ars, St. John Vianney

Lionel:
The baptism of desire is not a problem for me. As long as you do not imply that it refers to known and visible cases, who are explicit exceptions, to the interpretation of the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeeny.
You don't understand Feeney at all. He didn't hold to your interpretation.
Lionel:
Feeenyism for me is based on the empirical understanding that there are no known exceptions, no physical exceptions to the dogmatic teaching i.e all need the baptism of water in the present times. The  baptism of desire etc are not known to us in the present times in personal sense; in a phsyical sense.The person saved as such is not empirically seen on earth.They are not before us in terms of matter, weight, space, light and movement.So Fr.Feeney was correct. There are no exceptions.
____________________________________
The baptism of desire ( invisible for us) is compatible with Fr.Leonard Feeney's 'rigorist interpretation 'of the dogma.
Feeney believed that justification and salvation at death were two different things. That was his error.
Lionel:
Note again you are talking in terms of theology.Your theology is based on the belief that we can empirically, according to the laws of physics, see a person saved or justified with the baptism of desire.According to Fr.Leonard Feeney there was no such person._____________________________________
 
JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW ANY CASE IN 2014 DOESN'T MEAN A THING.
Lionel:
It means there are no known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma according to the Church Councils, popes, saints and Fr.Leonard Feeeny.
NO ONE IS SAYING THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS.
Lionel:
Are you saying that the baptism of desire etc are not exceptions to the dogma?
______________________________________
FACTS ARE FACTS REGARDLESS WHETHER A CASE EVEN EXISTS.
Lionel:
It is a fact that a case of the baptism of desire, of someone saved without the baptism of water( or with the baptism of water) , does not exist in 2014 for us. We do not know anyone saved us such.
A case in 2014 means nothing. We have cases in history that say so. Men have been saved without Baptism.
Lionel:
If you are saying that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma then I would ask you to point out the exception in 2014. This case would be important.
_____________________________________
You don't know any known cases who were saved with baptism of water either.
Lionel:
Yes and I am not saying that the baptism of desire ( with or without the baptism of water) is an exception to the dogma. The Letter of the Holy Office suggests it is.This is how Vatican Council II is accepted. LG 16 is supposed to be an exception to the dogma. The same false inference has led to the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257 saying God is not limited to the Sacraments. Defacto he is limited to the Sacraments according to the dogma, the Syllabus of Errors etc.
WRONG. God is not limited to the sacraments. Maybe, you and I don't believe and worship the same God.
Lionel:
In the following  passage the underscored lines say God has chosen to limit salvation to the Sacraments of the Catholic Church.I support this orthodox position in CCC 1257.
The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude.
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.-Catechism of the Catholic Church.
_____________________________________
 
My God is not limited by sacraments.
Lionel:
Mine has, defacto, in the present times, chosen to limit salvation to the Sacraments of the Catholic Church.
The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude...(CCC 1257. Also see Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II. Also see the dogma Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441).
__________________________________________________
Your god apparently is. The Catholic Church has never taught that God is limited by the sacraments. THAT'S YOUR PERSONAL TEACHING BASED OFF YOUR PERSONAL INTERPRETATION.
Lionel:
It is the traditional teaching of the Magisterium.
Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door.-Ad Gentes 7.
_______________________________________
Does that mean baptism doesn't save since you don't know any actual cases?
Lionel:
It means that a person can be saved with the baptism of desire followed by the baptism of water and it would be known only to God.
YOU DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION. IT'S A YES OR NO.
Lionel:
Baptism of water saves you. We do not know of any case of the baptism of desire in 2014. We cannot know if any one this year who will be saved with the baptism of blood instead of the baptism of water. This is the supernatural realm  known only to God.
Which is it?
It is not an exception or relevant to the traditional teaching.In general God saves with the baptism of water. It is given to adults with Catholic Faith.
YOU DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION. IT'S A YES OR NO.
Lionel:
Yes the baptism of water saves you.
Yes the baptism of desire followed with the baptism of water saves you.
Yes the baptism of blood followed by the baptism of water saves you.
_______________________________________________________
Which is it?
Lionel:
It is not either/ or for me since the baptism of desire and blood are invisible and subjectively acceptable.
It is either/ or for you since in your mind you still assume these cases are visible and known in a physical realm, according to the laws of nature.
_______________________________________________________
 
Are you really in Christ? Which Christ? Your Christ that's limited to sacraments? If so, then your christ is not my Christ.
Lionel:
I accept Christ in the Catholic Church and acording to the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church, the traditional Magisterium which is  supported by Vatican Council II.
I know you also support the traditional magisterium on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.However since you infer that all salvation is visible to us on earth, in the physical realm, so Vatican Council II would be a break with the magisterium of the past.-Lionel Andrades
__________________________________________
 

The baptism of desire is not a problem for me. As long as you do not imply that it refers to known and visible cases, who are explicit exceptions, to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/12/the-baptism-of-desire-is-not-problem.html