Sunday, August 23, 2015

Catechisms place baptism of desire and blood with passages which affirm the necessity of the baptism of water : subtly inferring that they are explicit

Immagine correlata
Immagine correlata
The Catechisms have placed being saved with the baptism of desire or blood along with the orthodox passages which affirm the necessity of the baptism of water for all with no exceptions.By doing this they have inferred that there are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS)

The Baltimore Catechism has placed being saved with the baptism of desire(BOD) and baptism of blood(BOB)   in the section on the necessity of Baptism.This was a simple but subtle action. By doing this the Americans at Baltimore inferred  that BOD and BOB are explicit, instead of implicit, visible instead of invisible.Why? Since these cases  would have to be known and visible to be an exception to all needing the baptism of water.So indirectly they were saying that there were exceptions to EENS. Since these cases are explicit and objective in the present times,they become relevant and even exceptions,to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.
Immagine correlata
So in a subtle way the Americans at Baltimore got Catholics to accept that there were exceptions to the traditional interpretation on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
Similarly the Catechism of Pope Pius X did the same.It  placed the new baptisms in the section on the necessity of the baptism of water for all.
So the new doctrine had become established in the Catholic Church there was to be a change in catechises.
 This was the new heresy in the Church. They had done away with the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS, changed the Nicene Creed( I believe in one baptism) and the Syllabus of Errors would now become meaningless, since the Magisterium itself was contradicting it.

This would be confirmed in the Boston Case in 1949 when the Holy Office would consider the 'baptisms' of desire and blood as being explicit exceptions to the traditional, rigorist interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.The new doctrine was now official and in place.
Immagine correlata
So in Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) the baptism of desire and blood would be placed along with the orthodox text saying all need faith and baptism for salvation. Again it was being inferred in a subtle way that there were explicit exceptions to the traditional teaching on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church incorporated this error in CCC 1257.It stated all need the baptism of water for salvation but God is not limited to the Sacraments. This was a direct rejection of the dogma EENS which tells us God has chosen to limit salvation to the Sacraments.This was also contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction.How can it be suggested that all de facto need the baptism of water for salvation but some do not?!
It is the same pattern. What is invisible is considered visible. Persons in Heaven are invisible for us. We cannot say that someone in Heaven is there without the baptism of water. We cannot say that some in Heaven is there without the baptism of water and he is visible on earth so it is to be inferred that there are explicit exceptions to all needing to convert formally into the Church for salvation.
If we care aware of this irrational inference we can re-interpret the Catechism and Vatican Council II rationally.
The result: these magisterial documents will support the old ecclesiology and the traditional interpretation of EENS.
Fr.Leonard Feeney would be correct and the Holy Office 1949 would be irrational, wrong and heretical.
  -Lionel Andrades
Immagine correlata


Lesson 24 from the Baltimore Cathechism
« prev : next »

315. What is Baptism?

Baptism is the sacrament that gives our souls the new life of sanctifying grace by which we become children of God and heirs of heaven.
Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (John 3:5)

316. What sins does Baptism take away?

Baptism takes away original sin; and also actual sin and all the punishment due to them, if the person baptized be guilty of any actual sins and truly sorry for them.
Get up and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on his name. (Acts 22:16)

317. What are the effects of the character imprinted on the soul by Baptism?

The effects of the character imprinted on the soul by Baptism are that we become members of the Church, subject to its laws, and capable of receiving other sacraments.

318. Who can administer Baptism?

The priest is the usual minister of Baptism, but if there is danger that someone will die without Baptism, anyone else may and should baptize.

319. How would you give Baptism?

I would give Baptism by pouring ordinary water on the forehead of the person to be baptized, saying while pouring it: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

320. Why is Baptism necessary for the salvation of all men?

Baptism is necessary for the salvation of all men because Christ has said: "Unless a man be born again of water and the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
Now they who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. (Acts 2:41)

321. How can those be saved who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism?

Those who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism can be saved through what is called baptism of blood or baptism of desire.

322. How does an unbaptized person receive the baptism of blood?

An unbaptized person receives the baptism of blood when he suffers martyrdom for the faith of Christ.
Greater love than this no one has, that one lay down his life for his friends. (John 15:13)

323. How does an unbaptized person receive the baptism of desire?

An unbaptized person receives the baptism of desire when he loves God above all things and desires to do all that is necessary for his salvation.
If anyone love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our abode with him. (John 14:23)

324. When should children be baptized?

Children should be baptized as soon as possible after birth...
Immagine correlata
Necessity of Baptism and Obligations of the Baptised
16 Q. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?
A. Baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation, for our Lord has expressly said: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."
17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
 Note there is no explicit or implicit distinction made here. So this passage lends itself to confusion and heresy.)

Immagine correlata

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.

Immagine correlata

( The part in blue suggests all need the baptism of water and the passage in  red says there are exceptions.)
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. Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."(17) Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6), yet a necessity lies upon the Church (1 Cor. 9:16), and at the same time a sacred duty, to preach the Gospel. And hence missionary activity today as always retains its power and necessity.-Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II.

Baltimore Catechism made an empirical mistake : there can only be one known baptism for us human beings

So is the SSPX in schism or not Bishop Schneider ? : so much of ambiguity

Dear Michael Voris, here are some clarifications about the issue of the SSPX:

1. I have not said that there are no reasons which would hinder a canonical recognition of the SSPX, but I said more cautiously "To my knowledge there are no weighty reasons".

2. I have not said that the current canonical situation of the SSPX is OK. The contrary, because of the their uncanonical status it is necessary that they receive the recognition from the Holy See.

3. I said that the SSPX should be received as they are, meanwhile. My thought is this: for pedagogical and pastoral reasons they should be meanwhile accepted as they are, in order to correct by time those things which have to be corrected in the SSPX.

4. I never said, that I support the positions of the SSPX about Vatican II. I only said, that there is on both sides, i.e. the Holy See and the SPPX an over-evaluation and overestimation of Vatican II, yet on opposing points of views. The question is the right measure, i.e. we must have an estimation and a good evaluation of Vatican II, but not in an exaggerated manner. We have not to make Vatican II a Council isolated from all the previous Councils or a kind of super-Council.

5. This is the tragedy of the history, that in confused times as this is our time, the good forces in the Church, which want to restore the true faith and Divine worship often fight one against the other, to the detriment of the true renewal and to the joy of the enemies outside and inside the Church.

6. Of course, the SPPX has to make their critics with more respect towards the supreme authority of the Church and has to avoid incorrect and exaggerated expressions and judgements. One has to act with the principle "veritatem facientes in caritate" (to defend the truth with love). This I often told to the representatives of the SSPX.

7. One has to have enough intellectual honesty and objectivity as to admit that the SSPX makes some theological criticism of some not strictly dogmatic affirmations in the texts of Vatican II and of some postconciliar documents, which have to be taken seriously. Unfortunately their criticism lacks sometimes the due respectful form. Nevertheless, some theological objections of the SSPX can be a constructive contribution for a more mature theological explication of certain themes, as for example the collegiality, religious liberty, the liturgical reform

8. Each true catholic should only be glad and thank God, when the SSPX with all their priests and Catholic families, from which the majority are faithful Catholics, would be recognized by the Holy See, so that there would be a new considerable force for a renewal of the Church according to the mind of the Saints, of our forefathers and of the true intention of Pope John XXIII, the intention which is demonstrated in his speeches and especially in the document drafts (schemata) which this Pope ordered to prepare and which he personally approved.

9. The current situation of the Church is similar to that of the Arian Crisis in the 4th century: there is a naval battle in the night, where the enemies of the Church attack vehemently the big ship of the Church, whereas in the same time little ships of several true Catholic groups attacks one another, instead of make a common defense against the enemies.

I give you the permission to use these my clarifications and to spread them. God bless you, + Athanasius Schneider

Bishop Athanasius Schneider contradicted by Catholic religious

Joseph Shaw removes comments

Elementary My Dear Watson!

If the issue of other religions and salvation is clear and affirms the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus then the issue of Collegiality and Primacy are also dealt with, as is Religious Freedom.

Expedient popes could disown Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Michael Voris unless they rubber stamped Vatican Council II with the Richard Cushing nonsense

Bishop Bernard Fellay and Cardinal Walter Brandmuller have only to interpret Vatican Council II with the left hand side column and the Council is traditional on Islam and other religions

SSPX has only to interpret Vatican Council II with the left hand side column and there is no break with their traditional beliefs on other religions, ecumenism and religious liberty

April 23-Sept.11,2014 - still no clarification from the SSPX

April 13-August 24,2014 and still no correction or clarification from Bishop Bernard Fellay