I do not claim to know how each person specfically will be judged by God. I do not and cannot know their state after death according to my personal ability or judgement.
I accept the baptism of desire like the St. Benedict Centers and believe it must be followed with the baptism of water.This was also the position of Fr.Leonard Feeney, the saints and popes.
I reject the baptism of desire as excluding the baptism of water and AS BEING KNOWN.
As a speculative case, if you want to believe that since God is all powerful and can choose to do what he wants and so can save a person without the baptism of water O.K, but you cannot speculate and suggest that you know of any particular case. Neither can you speculate that St. Emerentiana or the Good Thief were one of these cases. You cannot, since no one saw them in Heaven without the baptism of water. So the original person who claimed that St. Emerentiana or St. Victor etc were in Heaven without the baptism of water, SPECULATED.That's all.
Our positions (You and I) which are Church teaching
It is meaningless to refer to 'Church teaching' any more on this subject, since the present magisterium contradicts the magisterium of the past.It is the difference between Cushing and Feeney, extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) without exceptions and EENS with exceptions, Vatican Council II with exceptions to EENS and Vatican Council II without exceptions to EENS.
It is unpleasant to say all this but the difference is brought out by Church doctrine itself. I say all this based on Church doctrine and reason, faith and reason.
...every person while alive must be taught in charity and love that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church and that they must remain, return or enter the Church in order to be saved. Baptism of desire, Baptism of Blood and Invincible Ignorance are completely irrelevant to what both of our catechesis would be in in our teaching to any and all individuals that we would encounter.
But take your quote today, " There is no baptism of desire without the baptism of water" That is wrong.
There is no known baptism of desire without the baptism of water. Of course you agree with me here. This is something obvious.
If there was a baptism of desire without the baptism of water no one would know of any such case, no one would be able to see such a person in 1808 when the Baltimore Catechism was written nor in 1949 when the Letter of the Holy Office was issued.So how can any one speculate that there was a baptism of desire without the baptism of water and then place this speculation as an exception to EENS.
The theologians who did this were dishonest, if they did it intentionally.
With this line of thinking you have crossed the pale of death and told God Himself that after a person dies if they attained Salvation by Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood or was in a state of sanctity that was pleasing to God while invincibly ignorant that God must baptism them with water.
I am following the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This was how the dogma was interpreted by St., Robert Bellarmine, St. Francis Xavier and the Jesuit missionaries and this is how the dogma is not interpreted by the present Jesuits, including Pope Francis.
That is heresy pure and simple. Your attack on countless Saints and popes of past generations on this matter is sinful. God is not bound by His sacraments.
I am citing the popes and saints and magisterial documents.( Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14), CCC 1257, Cantate Dominio Council of Florence 1441 etc)
We could not even begin to grasp what God knows of each persons condition or lack thereof of sanctity. Your known and unknown thesis of attaining salvation is valid only in so far as it is possible while a person is alive and under the Church's influence to catechize them correctly on EENS Your coupling of this after a person dies is your undoing.
Yes it refers to persons living. They need to formally enter the Church to avoid Hell. The Church's past magisterium, teaches that after a person dies, he goes to Hell without the baptism of water and Catholic faith.This is the teaching of the one, true Church,inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is inspired by God and refers to Truth, objective reality.
Unfortunately, the Church changed their understanding of objective reality with the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
It is Church teaching that a person may achieve Heaven by BOB< BOD or in a state of sanctity pleasing to God BUT these conditions are not for us to presume, advocate or most of all OFFER to anyone as a possibility of salvation while they are alive.
Before the Council of Trent the Church taught that all needed the baptism of water for salvation and that if a person died with the baptism of desire, it was an opinion, and not a dogma, he could , hopefully, be saved since he wished for the baptism of water which God would provide for him.
Before the Baltimore Catechism (1808) the Church did not teach that the baptism of desire was equivalent to the baptism of water.It did not suggest that the baptism of desire was a Sacrament.
Any way, we do not know of any baptism of desire case, with or without the baptism of water, in 2016. So it is not a known exception to the dogma.
Neither do we know of any one saved with the baptism of blood, invincible ignorance, seeds of the Word and imperfect communion with the Church and who did not receive the baptism of water, so it is not an exception, or even relevant to the dogma EENS.
Why is the baptism of desire an issue for you?
For me it is was a magisterial heresy.It was a heresy of the contemporary magisterium. The heresy was made official in 1949 when, with an inter office letter among bishops, a dogma of the Church was discarded. The Church then chose the letter instead of the dogma.
Yes you are correct in that most clerics get this wrong BUT as in a court of law you cannot continually say they infer heresy unless they say so explicitly which most cleverly avoid doing.
Lionel:For me the clerics in 1949 Rome and Boston were in heresy since there was no baptism of desire case without the baptism of water. There were none known to them and none in past history.So this was an innovation. It rejected the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS.This was heresy. It has also changed the Nicene Creed and is a rejection of the Athanasius Creed.Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX unknowingly accepted it.
False reasoning from the Letter is all over Vatican Council II: Abp Lefebvre did not notice it -3
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Michael Davies, Dietrich Von Hildebrand and other traditionalists allowed the Church to continue on a wrong theological way
The Letter made a mistake. Archbishop Lefebvre did not notice it.