The fruits of explicit for us baptism of desire and not implicit for us baptism of desire
- Elaine:
- What is this explicit implicit thing? Baptism of desire is not a teaching of the Church. It doesn't help any living person whatsoever, rather it harms their faith, makes them lax, denies the doctrine of baptism, denies the need for church membership, denies Christ's words, denies the dogma of EENS, denies all the canons in Trent and makes the Church and God liars.
God is not hindered by lack of water. He gets all the elect baptism. There is no need for baptism of desire. God is not impotent. And He is not a liar.
There is a perfectly sound way to acknowledge the true teachings, the canons, Christ Himself, and honor our Almighty God in all of His divine mercy: God gets baptism for all His elect.
- Elaine,
I agree with you in general.
There is so much of confusion since Cardinal Marchetti Selvaggiani (1949)inferred that the baptism of desire was an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
In other words there would have to be explicit cases in the present times for there to be an exeption to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
You and I know that in 2015 there is no explicit case of someone who will be saved without the baptism of water. We cannot meet or know an exception. So there is no baptism of desire exception to the 'rigorist ' and traditional interpretation of the dogma.
The baptism of desire is irrelevant.
So one can consider the baptism of desire as a possibility, known only to God, which will be followed by the baptism of water.
With or without the baptism of water ( for those who beleive that the baptism of desire offers salvation wihout the baptism of water) the baptism of desire is not visible, objective, explicit and known in personal cases.So it has nothing to do with the dogma. Cardinal Marchetti made an objective mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office.
Similarly Vatican Counc II's LG 16, LG 6, NA 2, UR 3 etc are not known in the present times and they would be followed with the baptism of water. They would have to be followed by the baptism of water since this is the de fide teaching.
So there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the Church Councils, popes, saints and Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston. - Elaine:
What is this explicit implicit thing? Baptism of desire is not a teaching of the Church. It doesn't help any living person whatsoever, rather it harms their faith, makes them lax, denies the doctrine of baptism, denies the need for church membership, denies Christ's words, denies the dogma of EENS, denies all the canons in Trent and makes the Church and God liars.
Lionel:
: There is no explicit baptism of desire for us.No such case exists in our reality.So it has nothing to do with extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
We have to avoid the Marchetti inference.
__________________
Elaine:
God is not hindered by lack of water. He gets all the elect baptism. There is no need for baptism of desire. God is not impotent. And He is not a liar.
There is a perfectly sound way to acknowledge the true teachings, the canons, Christ Himself, and honor our Almighty God in all of His divine mercy: God gets baptism for all His elect.
Lionel:
Yes. - -Lionel Andrades
Posts
