Monday, April 13, 2015

The error was not corrected. Cushing brought it into Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) with no opposition. Even the traditionalists agreed with him!

   
Creative Minority Report
Lionel:
Water baptism is necessary for salvation.The Magisterium says it is necessary (Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14), CCC 1257, 845,846, Redemptoris Missio 55, Dominus Iesus 20, Council of Trent, Syllabus of Errors, Catechism of Pope Pius X, Cantate Dominio Council of Florence 1441 etc).”
wineinthewater:
Redemptoris Missio 55 never makes any claims that support your point. In fact, it says: “Dialogue should be conducted and implemented with the conviction that the Church is the ordinary means of salvation and that she alone possesses the fullness of the means of salvation.” Ordinary means necessitates extraordinary means.
Lionel:
'The ordinary means of salvation ' is Catholic Faith and the baptism of water. The ordinary means of salvation cannot be the baptism of desire and being a martryr.
We can administer the baptism of water. We cannot give anyone the baptism of desire or blood.
__________________________
 
Trent is clear about the non-necessity of actual water baptism: “By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.”
Lionel:
'without the laver of regeneration', is a reference to the baptism of water.
' or the desire thereof', refers to the desire for  the laver of regeneration, which is the desire for the baptism of water.
Why do you mention this, are you inferring that this is a known exception to the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus?
This would be the mistake of the 1949 Letter.If they just accepted the baptism of desire ( as I do) and left it at that it would be fine.Instead they assumed that it was an exception to the dogma. Here they brought in the irationality.How can people unknown to us and known only to God be an explicit exception to all needing to be formal members of the Church for salvation?
___________________________
wineinthewater:
Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors does not make your point.
Lionel:
The Syllabus of Errors says every one needs to be a formal member of the Church for salvation.This is in agreement with the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma.
_______________________________
 
Dominus Iesus 20 actually explicitly warns against what you are trying to do. It is clear that visible membership in the Church is not necessary to be inside the Church or for salvation: “For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, “salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit”; it has a relationship with the Church, which “according to the plan of the Father, has her origin in the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit”.”
Lionel:
Here is Dominus Iesus 20 affirming the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extar ecclesiam nulla salus.
Above all else, it must be firmly believed that “the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door”-Dominus Iesus 20
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus!
This doctrine must not be set against the universal salvific will of God (cf. 1 Tim 2:4); “it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation”.
-Dominus Iesus 20
Further clarification on extra ecclesiam nulla salus in this passage above.
wineinthewater:
“For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church,
Lionel:
These cases are unknown to us in the present times so they are not exceptions to the above passages or to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
With Cushingism they would be exceptions.
________________
 
“salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation.
Lionel:
We do not known any such case. So this passage is not a contradiction to the earlier orthodox one.
This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit”; it has a relationship with the Church, which “according to the plan of the Father, has her origin in the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit”.”
Lionel:
The reference is to a hypothetical case. A theoretical case cannot be a defactocase. It cannot be  explicit, seen in the flesh.So it is not relevant to the dogma.
If you use Cushing's irrational premise and inference then you can make it appear relevant.With the Feeneyite approach this passage is not a contradiction to the dogma.
_____________________
 
wineinthewater:
The 1917 Code of Canon Law is clear about the effect of baptism of desire: “Can. 206 §1 Catechumens are linked with the Church in a special way since, moved by the Holy Spirit, they are expressing an explicit desire to be incorporated in the Church. By this very desire, as well as by the life of faith, hope and charity which they lead, they are joined to the Church which already cherishes them as its own.
Lionel:
It is referring to a hypothethical case. There is no such case known to us. There cannot be such a case known to us humans. So it cannot be inferred that Canon Law is referring to a known exception to the dogma. It would irrational.
______________________________
 
Finally, the Catechism of Pius X explicitly rejects the absolute necessity of water baptism and visible membership in 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.”
Lionel:
One again this is a reference to an hypothethical case. In theory a person could be saved as such for me ( followed with the baptism of water) in reality we do not and cannot know such a case for it to be considered an exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma. With or without the baptism of water, whatever be the argument, it is still an invisible case.It is a zero case, in the words of John Martignoni the apologist, who says there are no known exeptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.There are no known exceptions to the dogma says  the Benedictine Dean of Theology at the St.Anselm University in Rome, Fr.S.Visintin.Many priests here agree with him.
wineinthewater:
I don’t think I’ve seen a more explicit rejection of Feeney’s theology than this.
Lionel:
You have cited hypothetical cases and assumed they are known to us in the present times (2015) to be explicit exceptions to the dogma. Is this rational? People in Heaven are known on earth for you, to be  exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church in the present times.
___________________________
 
Visible membership is not necessary, water baptism is not necessary.
Lionel:
The dogma says it is necessary and the pre and post Vatican Council II texts which I have quoted say it is necessary.
Here is the Gospel Reading for today (April 13,2015)
There was a Pharisee named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.
He came to Jesus at night and said to him,
“Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God,
for no one can do these signs that you are doing
unless God is with him.”
Jesus answered and said to him,
“Amen, amen, I say to you,
unless one is born from above, he cannot see the Kingdom of God.”
Nicodemus said to him,
“How can a man once grown old be born again?
Surely he cannot reenter his mother’s womb and be born again, can he?”
Jesus answered,
“Amen, amen, I say to you,
unless one is born of water and Spirit
he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.
What is born of flesh is flesh
and what is born of spirit is spirit.
Do not be amazed that I told you,
‘You must be born from above.’
The wind blows where it wills,
and you can hear the sound it makes,
but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes;
so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
____________________
Being inside the Church is necessary, and while water baptism and formal membership are the ordinary means of being inside, they are not the exclusive means.
Lionel:
Even if they were not the exclusive means they are not known to us .So they cannot be an example of salvation outside the Church, or an exception to the dogma. This was the basic Marchetti-Cushing flaw.
______________________
 
  These other means are not “exceptions” to the dogma, they are extraordinary means available to God to fulfill the dogma. The magisterium is painfully clear.
Lionel:
Are you affirming the rigorist interpretation of the dogma, the traditional understanding of the Councils, popes and saints? No. So there are known exceptions for you.
_______________________
 
Yet in the face of all this explicit and implicit teaching, Fr. Feeney tells us “Baptism of Water, or damnation! If you do not desire that Water, you cannot be justified. And if you do not get it, you cannot be saved!”
Lionel:
Correct. Defacto all need it.
This is also the message in magisterial teachings which I have cited above i.e Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14), CCC 1257, 845,846, Redemptoris Missio 55, Dominus Iesus 20, Council of Trent, Syllabus of Errors, Catechism of Pope Pius X, Cantate Dominio Council of Florence 1441 etc.
_______________________
 
 and you say “Yes and all non Catholics with no exception need to formally enter the Church to go to Heaven and avoid Hell. This is also magisterial.”
Lionel:
Yes.
________________________
 
You also say:
“For me the baptism of desire and blood are possibilities which I accept and they would always be followed with the baptism of water. This is the de fide teaching according to the dogma and other magisterial documents.”
Lionel:
According to the dogma. (Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441)
According to Vatican Council II ( Ad Gentes 7, all need faith and baptism for salvation).
_________________________
Where? I have quoted pretty much every magisterial teaching you have mentioned. Where does a single one of them say that baptism of desire will always be followed with baptism of water?
Lionel:
The dogma was clear that the ordinary means of salvation is the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
You do not know of any exception. Neither did Cardinal Ratzinger know of any exception.Neither did Marchetti-Cushing.So all we have are hypothetical cases, which you have cited here.That's fine. As you long as you do not postulate that these cases are known to us in the present times.
__________________________
 
  You keep talking about this “irrational proposition,” but I think an even more irrational proposition is the suggestion that the Church would spend so much time about talking about the effectiveness of baptism of desire if every baptism of desire was followed by water baptism. If there is always a water baptism, there is no point in talking about baptism of desire at all.
Lionel:
The references to the baptism of desire etc being relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus has come into the Church in 1949. The error was not corrected. So Cushing brought it into Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) with no opposition. Even the tradtionalists agreed with him!
____________________________
 
Your descent into conspiracy speculation at the end of your comment makes me fear that rational discourse may be to no end. 
Lionel:
No conspiracy here. Every thing is in black and white and can be confirmed. One can use an irrational inference, or avoid it , in the interpretation of magisterial texts.
The Magisterium used the irrational inference in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1257 etc).
____________________________
 
I have given you the actual magisterial texts that either explicitly or implicitly refute the Feeney-ite heresy.
Lionel:
You have cited magisterial texts. Then you have assumed that these texts do not refer to hypothetical cases but known cases in the present times. So then you conclude that these 'objective' cases for you, are exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma. So you have given us magisterial texts interpreted with the irrational premise. The irrational premise is that salvation in Heaven is personally known and visible on earth. Then you have made an irrational inference. It  is that since these cases are personally known in the present times they are exceptions to all needing to enter the Church in the present times, for salvation.
________________________________
 
 
  (The fact that you cite them as if they support your position when they in fact refute it makes me wonder if you have even read them or if you are just copying a list of supposed proofs from some Feeney-ite tract on the internet.)
Lionel:
 Here are my quotes supporting the Feeenyite interpretation of the dogma  Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14), CCC 1257, 845,846, Redemptoris Missio 55, Dominus Iesus 20, Council of Trent, Syllabus of Errors, Catechism of Pope Pius X, Cantate Dominio Council of Florence 1441 etc.You personally do not know any exception in the present times.Neither can you cite any magisterial text before 1949 which says there are known exceptions in the present times.You cannot name any one who is in Heaven without 'faith and baptism' on April 13,2015 to be an exception to the dogma.You cannot meet someone saved with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water today.So you cannot know of any exception to all needing to formally enter the Church to avoid Hell.
-Lionel Andrades 
 
 
April 11, 2015
 
 
 

No comments: