'It assumed the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance,referred to explicit cases, known cases of persons, who were saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church' (Lionel)
It assumed no such inanity.
It assumed no such inanity.
In the following passage we have the rejection of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) in the Letter (1949).It was kept secret for three years before it was made public by the Archdiocese of Boston.
Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member,-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
It rejects the dogma EENS when it suggests that the baptism of desire etc is relevant or an exception to EENS.
Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing. -Letter of the Holy Office 1949
So ' it assumed the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance,referred to explicit cases, known cases of persons, who were saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church'.
Otherwise how could the baptism of desire etc be relevant or an exception to EENS? Otherwise why would it be mentioned?
If there is a box of oranges and there is an apple in that box the apple is an exception not only because it is different but also because it is there in that box.If it was not in the box it would not be an exception.
That is a charge you tirelessly repeat in uncountable forums and you never - NEVER - have been able to produce any evidence - NOT ONE SCINTILLA - that that is what that letter either intended to mean or does mean.
Here is more proof.
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
This passage assumes the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance,refers to an explicit case.It is a known case of someone aved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.Otherwise why would the Letter (1949) mention it with reference to Feeneyite EENS '.It states,'as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire'.Yes? So what? Someone we know has been saved as such?
Here is more of the same.
'In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing.'- Letter of the Holy Office 1949
All of you (traditionalists and contemporary magisterium) have accepted this passage. Since in 2016 you all know of someone saved 'in certain circumstances' only with 'desire and longing' and without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church'? This was an explicit case for somebody otherwise why would it be mentioned in the Letter,yes ?
You are your own cult
The 16th century missionaries accepted the baptism of desire and blood as being implicit and invisible for us human beings so there were no exceptions to the dogma EENs. It is the same with me.
O, and Lionel, consider excommunication your own self from that autocephalic cult in which you exist and return to the One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church outside of which you will go to Hell.
I am not in a one, true,apostolic and Holy Roman Catholic Church which assumes theoretical, hypothetical cases, known only to God, are explicit and objective for us in 2016.This is your Catholic Church.
I am in a Catholic Church in which I choose to consider hypothetical cases as just being hypothetical.
So I accept the first part of the Letter(1949) and reject the second part..The second part rejects the magisterium of the Church in the Council of Trent and before the Council of Trent.The contemporary magisterium accepts the objective error and so is a rupture with the pre-Baltimore Catechism magisterium.
That is an irony you are too blind to see, isn't it?
Can hypothetical cases be explicit exceptions to the dogma EENs? And if they cannot then has the Letter (1949) made an objective mistake?- I ask you, again.
Answer this question please. It is a difficult question,for some reason, for Boniface on the blog Unam Sanctam Catholicam and Bro. Alexis Bugnolo on the blog From Rome.
Prof.Phillip Blosser, a Professor of Philosophy and owner of the blog Musings of a Pertinacious Papist and Tancred at the blog The Eponymous Flower agree with me.They agree with me when I say that hypothetical cases cannot be explicit for us in the present times.So they cannot be exceptions to the dogma EENS.This is basically what I have been saying, the last few years.
The same thing has been said by an Archbishop, many priests and a lay apologist. I have quoted them on my blog. One of these priests, who agrees with me, is the present Dean of Theology at the Pontifical University of St. Anselm in Rome.-Lionel Andrades