Tuesday, March 31, 2015

The Council of Trent does not state that these cases are physically or personally known to us to be exceptions to the dogma.This has to be wrongly inferred.

wineinthewater
If the Church ever actually held the rigorist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, then she threw it away long before 1949. Pope Pius XI rejected the rigorist interpretation in his encyclical Quuanto Conficiamur Moerore.
Lionel:
Please cite the text.
I don't think it says any where that there are known exceptions to the rigorist interpretation of the dogma.

_______________________
 

Trent rejected it.
Lionel:
The same with Trent.
The Council of Trent mentions the posibility of a person being saved with implicit desire in a way known to God.
The Council of Trent does not state that these cases are physically or personally known to us to be exceptions to the dogma.
This has to be wrongly inferred. The text does not make this claim.
_____________________
Thomas Aquinas rejected it with his embrace of baptism of repentance and baptism of desire.
Lionel:
St.Thomas Aquinas like St.Augustine held the strict interpretation of the dogma.
He mentions the man in the forest in invincible ignorance. He also says that God will send a preacher to him. So he will be baptised before he dies.
It has to be inferred wrongly that the man in the forest refers to a known case and so it is an exception to the dogma.The text does not state this.Liberal theologians make the irrational inference.

__________________
This is obviously quite the issue for you. But as for me, I will put my faith in the Church.
Lionel:
So will I.
The Church according to magisterial texts including Vatican Council II. None of them are interpreted by me, with the irrational proposition that persons saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the rigorist interpretation of the dogma. This would be implying that we can personally see or know these persons on March 31, 2015 for them to be exceptions.

_______________________
If she has erred on this, then she is not the Church founded by Jesus and cannot be trusted about anything.
Lionel:
I see it as an oversight of the magisterium after 1949. It can be corrected and we are back to the rigorist interpretation of the dogma.

______________________
You can toss her non-rigorist view of EENS if you like, but you must likewise be willing to give up her authority behind every teaching.
Lionel:
It is the non rigorist vew of EENS which clashes with her Authority, the Bible and Tradition.

________________________
In an irony, by claiming that she is wrong now, you invalidate any claim to your rigorist position that is based on her authority.
Lionel:
With the rigorist interpretation of EENS the teaching of the Church is the same before and after Vatican Council II.
It is the non rigorist interpretation, the popular one, which is heresy. It rejects a defined dogma and changes the meaning of the Nicene Creed's 'I beleive in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin'.
There is only one known baptism, the baptism of water. We cannot administer the baptism of desire or blood to anyone. These are graces from God.
So it is wrong to imply that there is salvation outside the Church, without Catholic Faith and the baptism of water. None of us knows of an exception in the present times.
-Lionel Andrades
 

No comments: