Saturday, January 23, 2016

The Baltimore Catechism and the Catechism of Pope Pius X brought an innovation in the Church which changed doctrine on salvation and mission: the error of the Americans at Baltimore and Boston.

You still are emotionally unable to deal with the explicit-implicit distinction. You are repeating the same thing.
I am not opposed to the baptism of desire so what is the point of quoting the saints again.
I accept the baptism of desire since I make the visible-invisible distinction and so BOD is not relevant to extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) as an exception.

Lionel, I am working on an extensive reply to you on this ongoing discussion. I am linking all the dots throughout the centuries for you on salvation and the consistent teaching on BOB and BOD. What is ironic is that our catechesis is identical. Anyone and everyone that we might meet would be taught the rigorist formula of EENS. There are no exceptions to what we can teach and Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood and Invincible Ignorance are completely irrelevant to teaching and living totally in the EENS mode. I have NEVER met a person in my life that told me in our discussions or at times heated debates, that they will or could be saved by BOB, BOD or in Invincible Ignorance of the Catholic certainty of EENS. No one has ever said to me anything but that they think that I and/or the Catholic faith is wrong or something to that effect concerning EENS as the only path. From a catechesis belief and teaching on the necessity of the Catholic Church and Baptism by water you and I are identical. All of our fuss is over the theological aspects of the modus operandi of God concerning BOB, BOD and II AFTER death and not while they are alive.


I will be quoting for you the exact Latin along with the English translation of what the great and holy St. Charles Borremeo said concerning what his and the Church's mindset was when he said, "...'or the desire thereof.' He reflected the church teaching of the ages. He is regarded as one of the greatest Saints.
This is not the issue. I accept BOD and so do the liberals and the magisterium and the St.Benedict Center.They all accept BOD.
The issue you are not discussing is : is 'the desire therof' referring to a visible or invisible case. For the Americans at Baltimore and Boston it referred to a visible case and one without the baptism of water.What about you ? Is this possible? And so were they wrong or correct?

There is no need for you Lionel to continue your private interpretations of a great multitude of church teaching throughout the ages. ST. Charles Borremeo told us and the Church exactly why ...'or the desire thereof' was rightly, correctly and supernaturally is in the catechism of the Council of Trent; this the catechism that was called the catechism of impeccable certainty for centuries by many Popes. It is the catechism used by the FSSP today.

The FSSP infer that BOD refers to visible cases and so it is an exception to EENS.

Here is exactly what St. Charles Borremeo said in regards to ...' or the desire thereof' in the catechism of the council of Trent in regards to: " 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.

The baptism of desire as theology can be interpreted as being visible or invisible.You have to recognise this .The FSSP uses one inference, one of the two options.
Quote from St. Charles Borremeo:
"Sed quamvis hæc, ita sint, non consuevit tamen Ecclesia Baptismi Sacramentum huic hominum genere statim tribuere, sed ad certum tempus differendum esse constituit. Neque enim ea dilatio periculum, quod quidem pueris imminere supra dictum est, coniuctem habet; cum illis, qui rationis usu præditi sunt, Baptismi suscipiendi propositum atque consilium, et malæ actæ vitæ poenitentia satis futura sit ad gratiam et justitiam, si repentinus aliquis casus impediat, quominus salutari aqua ablui possint. Contra vero hæc dilatio aliquas videtur utilitates affere.... which translated to English says :

"Yet, even though things are so, it is nevertheless NOT customary for the Church to confer the Sacrament of Baptism on men immediately, but rather at fixed times appointed for this. For the delay is not a danger as is said it would be over a child, for those with the use of reason, the resolution and plan of receiving Baptism and the full repentance for the bad acts of life endows them with grace and justice if suddenly some misfortune impedes so that they are not able to be washed with the saving water"

So now you know EXACTLY why ....' or the desire thereof' was and is Church teaching.
I repeat the baptism of desire and baptism of water as Church teaching is not being questioned or denied.
What is being denied is that BOD is a known baptism and that it can exclude the baptism of water.Since there are no known cases in Church history.There cannot be any known case for us humans, since we cannot see or know these persons in Heaven.So for the Baltimore Catechism and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to imply that they are exceptions to the dogma EENS and are baptisms similar to EENS is irrational and heretical.There is no proof or precedent.This error has been accepted by the contemporary magisterium and is magisterial heresy.

There is no need to speculate on why those words are indeed ongoing church teaching for all time. The reason why a baby MUST be baptized with great urgency is because they are helpless in the necessity of them obtaining Baptism by water in order to SECURE their salvation. This act and sacrament is dependent on their parents/God parents. On the other hand those who have attained the age of reason who St. Charles Borremeo is referring to in the ..." or the desire thereof' is explicitly referring to those who desire baptism by water and meet an untimely death that those too MIGHT be saved. Do Not take the "...or the desire thereof" out of context or self interpret as you do with the countless Church teaching that you have dissed throughout the many years.

St.Charles Borremeo does not say that the baptsm of desire is a baptism or that it refers to a known case. He mentions with good will, a theoretical case, known only to God.
It is the liberal theologians who read this quote and infer that he refers to a known case and so BOD is a baptism without water and it is an exception to the dogma EENs.It is not there in the text but they make the irrational inference.It is there in the Baltimore Catechism.

The sentence that contains...' or the desire thereof' is a complete sentence and jointed teaching which reads, " 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." which emphatically says that, a person CANNOT enter into the kingdom of God without baptism of water OR a person who has attained the age of reason and desires baptism by water BUT meets and untimely death.

All need the baptism of water for salvation.
The person who desires the baptism of water and dies before receiving it is a zero-case.He or she was not part of the saints reality.

You are correct when you say we do NOT know and can not know if this person the "or the desire thereof" has been baptized with water and is therefore irrelevant to teaching the exclusivity of EENS without exception for there are no exceptions. Everyone in Heaven is Catholic! You are correct when you say that " God can do as he wants"
When I say God can do as he wants I make the theoretical-practical distinction, you do not and so there is confusion here.
Theoretically God can do what he wants.
Practically God has chosen to restrict salvation to the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
In theory( everything is possible with God) a person can be saved with the desire for the baptism of water before he dies and did not visibly receive it.
Practically a person has to be saved with the baptism of water, since all need the baptism of water for salvation and this is the teaching of the Church which cannot be contradicted by modern theologians since the Baltimore Catechism was issued. There are no 'theoretical exceptions'.

You are in grievous error when you repeatedly say, " that for me Baptism of Desire is always followed with Baptism by water for you project your position into the afterlife.

This is a de fide teaching which has been contradicted by the Baltimore Catechism and then the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.

This was Father Feeney's error.

Was this also the error of the Church Councils which defined EENS? Was this also the error of the Council of Trent when it affirmed the necessity of the baptism of water for all for salvation? Be consistent and condemn the Council of Florence 1441 on Cantate Dominio.
But do not say every one needs to enter the Church but some do not.
This is such a blatant error for you to project in the afterlife what God has to do or will do; for although we are bound by the sacraments and must believe and teach EENS without exception as Father Feeney correctly said when he proclaimed, " teach the faith and leave the mercies to God" He should have stopped there and not projected his views into the afterlife nor should
'for although we are bound by the sacraments and must believe and teach EENS without exception'. You contradict yourself when you accept the error of the Americans at Baltimore and Boston.

Lionel your premise on your blog and understanding is wrong and this is why it has produced no fruit.
What is my premise?
'My premise' and inference is something you refuse to discuss.For some emotional reason you cannot say that the Baltimore Catechism made a mistake and the FSSP position is irrational.You want to accept their irrationality and also hold the Feeneyite position on EENS.
Your defense and love of our Catholic faith is very admirable but instead of attacking church teaching on BOB nd BOD you should be asking:

1. Why did all save a few in the Catholic Church stop teaching EENS without exception in the 1950's
Since the Baltimore Catechism and the Catechism of Pope Pius X brought an innovation in the Church which changed doctrine on salvation and mission.

2. What significance does the letter of the Holy office of 1949 have to do with this crisis. You are right about the letters intent but for the wrong reasons. You will be surprised by what really happened during the time of that 'letter' that satan was foiled in doing for all of the previous centuries.
It followed the irrationality of the Baltimore Catechism and made the error official. The error was then transferred onto Vatican Council II since no pope corrected it in public.

3. What are the questions that you should be asking of the clerics on your blog that will hit a nerve and become fruitful. ..... you are asking the wrong questions and attacking those who were and are faithful Catholics
Those who promote an irrationality and heresy in the present times are not faithful and honest.
-Lionel Andrades

No comments: