Friday, July 22, 2016

Aquinas agrees with me!

From the blog Musings of a Pertinacious Papist: "More pleas to the pope ..."
Anonymous said...
She could have received the baptism of water after she died. St. Francis Xavier and the saints tell us that many people returned from the dead only to be baptised.

Bang, ace. You walked right into a straight right, just like I knew you would.

You are always arguing we can't believe thus and such because it was not seen but now you argue that what was not seen is what we must believe..
I do not reject the baptism of desire.For me it is invisible in real life if it exists.It is not an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).For the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, accepted by the magisterium and the SSPX and sedevacantists, BOD is explicit and so it is an exception to EENs. My understanding of EENs is the same as the 16th century missionaries, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Francis Xavier etc.
I am not adding anything new.
I have to keep pointing out to the innovation which has come into the Church with the 1949 Letter to the Archbishop of Boston.
Secondly whether St. Emerentiana received the baptism of water before or after she died or whether she is in Heaven without the baptism of water, she still is not an exception to the dogma EENS. Either way she is irrelevant to EENS. Since either way her condition would only be known to God.
For there to be an exception to the dogma EENS there would have to be a physically known case in the present times, saved without the baptism of water in the Church. He or she would have to be a known example of salvation outside the Church.How can St.Emerentiana, in the past, be an exception to EENs in the present times (2016)?Simple reasoning.Elementary My Dear Watson!
So you can speculate as much as you want about St Emerentiana but do not project her as an exception to EENS.


The funny thing is you will not understand what I just wrote :)
Lionel: And possibly vice versa.The old programming on the baptism of desire being explicit is strong. So in your mind you have concrete cases of the baptism of desire being the norm. In my mind I see simply hypothetical cases. There was no known case of a catechuman who desired the baptism of water but died before he received it and was saved.No such case.
This 'famous catechumen' is a creation over the centuries by those who wanted to get rid of the dogma EENS. They have succeeded. Cardinals Ratzinger and Schonborn  in the Catechism(1995) call EENS an 'aphorism'.They mention the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance in the Catechism as did Vatican Council II. It is  as if they are explicit cases. So they become  exceptions for the cardinals, to the old dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church. 
Similarly over the years there has been a campaign to give the Eucharist to the divorced and the remarried.Amoris Laetitia has now topped the old campiagn which actually saw people on the streets of Rome a few decades back demanding the Eucharist be given to the divorced.
Similarly Cardinal Cushing and the Jesuits of Boston maintained the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney and his expulsion from the Jesuit communities right through out Vatican Council II. In this way in Lumen Gentium 14, they could mention the 'famous unknown catechumen and in Lumen Gentium 16 mention being saved in invincble ignorance , as if they were explicit and exceptions to EENS.

It is small wonder you are a feeneyite for the poor man went bonkers in his protestant judgment and he got so whacked that he had his slaves raising children comunally in Still River, Mass and those children were rarely allowed to see their parents. Can you say, CULT!!!!
Lionel: A lot of water has flowed in the river since you read those old reports in 1960's and 70's on Feeneyism.They assumed that the baptism of desire was explicit and so Fr. Feeney made a mistake.Now Catholics are asking themselves, "Heck! Where are these baptism of desire cases that we have been talking about for the last 70 years.What are their names and surnames and where do they live? I mean if they are exceptions they cannot only be in Heaven.They would also have to be on earth.So what are their  addresses and telephone numbers?"

Feeney also taught this: “To say that God would never permit anyone to be punished eternally unless he had incurred the guilt of voluntary sin is nothing short of Pelagianism... . If God cannot punish eternally a human being who has not incurred the guilt of voluntary sin, how then, for example can He punish eternally babies who die unbaptized?”

Punished eternally without incurring voluntary guilt. That is Calvinism, Ace, and that is YOUR God, not mine.
Lionel: Please cite the exact text and source.It would be helpful.

Here is Aquinas:

St. Thomas Aquinas
Summa Theologica 
Part II. Question 66. Article 11

. . . a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentence."

Lionel: O.K.He is not saying it is explicit, seen in the flesh.He is not saying that it refers to someone we can know.I'm with Aquinas.

"The other two Baptisms are included in the Baptism of Water, which derives its efficacy, both from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost. Consequently for this reason the unity of Baptism is not destroyed."

"The other two. however, are like the Baptism of Water, not, indeed, in the nature of sign, but in the baptismal effect. Consequently they are not Sacraments.”
Lionel: Consequently they are not Sacraments! They are not known. They are not visible. They are not repeatable like the baptism of water.So they cannot be physical exceptions to the dogma EENS which was affirmed by St. Thomas Aquinas in other text.He supports me! BOD is not a Sacrament and it is not objectively visible ! What more do you expect?!
Aquinas is here contradicting the Baltimore Catechism(1891).Cardinal Gibbons placed the famous case of the unknown catechumen saved, in the Baptism Section of the Catechism.It is not a Sacrament says St. Thomas Aquinas and it is not known.
The liberals(Masons) made the Baltimore Catechism as a precedent for rejecting the dogma EENS at Boston.

So the contemporary Church made an objective mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.It  suggested that the baptism of desire was an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS.It was visible for them.It other words it was a possible Sacrament or had a sacramental effect or it was explicit to be an exceptiion to EENS. It could not be an exception since there are no baptism of desire cases in our reality.Aquinas does not state the contrary.

You are outside the Church and so ironies abound when you shriek that those outside the church are going to Hell.
Lionel: I affirm EENS and I affirm invisible for us and known only to God baptism of desire and blood.It is same with being saved in invincible ignorance.So I am not rejecting EENs or BOD and I.I.
I affirm EENS according to the 16th century missionaries who did not mention any exceptions to the dogma.I accept the first part of the Letter of the Holy Office and reject the second part.Since it  contradicts the first part.It infers there are physically known cases of the baptism of desire etc
Here is the first part:-
We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things which are contained in the word of God, whether it be Scripture or Tradition, and are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, not only through solemn judgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office (, n. 1792).
Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949

Here is the heretical second part:-
Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.
Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.
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. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (, nn. 797, 807).
The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. 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.
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


I accept Vatican Council II.So I am  not a sedevacantist or lay member of the SSPX.However I accept Vatican Council II with hypothetical cases only being hypothetical. So LG 16, LG 14 etc do not refer to physically known cases in the present times but are hypothetical for me. So there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the old ecclesiology based on EENS having no exceptions.
In Vatican Council II for me there is no change in the Church's teachings on an ecumenism of return, no salvation outside the Church for non Catholics and non Christians and the non separation of Church and State since there is no salvation outside the Church .All political legislation must have Jesus as known in the Church as it's centre.Since there is no known salvation outside the Church.Every one in the State needs to get to Heaven since there are only Catholics in Heaven.
I interpret the Nicene Creed with no theological exceptions to ' I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins'( and not three known baptisms).
I accept and interpret the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1995) without the new theology i.e there are no physically known cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance.So CCC1257 ( The Neccessity of Baptism) for me, does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction 
Can you beat this orthodoxy?!

Do you ever read what you write?

The Council of Trent infallibly taught what you daily deny, thus you are ANATHEMA
I accept 'the desiretherof'as mentioned in the Council of Trent.It is a hypothetical case.The 'famous unknown catechumen saved' is hypothetical for me. I assume it is a hypothetical case for all human beings.Is this case of the catechumen, real for you ?. Someone you know ? Was he someone who was seen in Heaven saved without the baptism of water?
 Of course not! So it  can only accepted as a hypothetical case.This was the mistake made in the Letter(1949).Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani, when he issued the Letter(1949) to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney, during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII, derailed Catholic theology.The effect was there among liberals AND traditionalists.Archbishop Lefebvre overlooked the heresy.The Letter re-interpreted 'the desire thereof' of the Council of Trent.It was done with a simple irrationality( physically visible BOD and I.I)

Thursday 07-21-2016
Celebrated on the thirteenth day of the month of January, 1547.


A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.
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: Agreed. All need the laver of regeneration ( baptism of water) and we cannot know of any exception in the present times.Humanly it is not possible, past or present to know someone who was justified and saved or not saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance.

CANON XXXIII.-If any one saith,that,by the Catholic doctrine touching Justification, by this holy Synod inset forth in this present decree, the glory of God, or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ are in any way derogated from, and not rather that the truth of our faith, and the glory in fine of God and of Jesus Christ are rendered (more) illustrious; let him be anathema.
Lionel: I say that for salvation the baptism of water is always needed. Always. No exceptions.
If you say that there is justification and salvation without the baptism of water, I would respond,'How could you physically know of such an exception, irrespective if there was or was not an exception??' Since it would be a hypothetical case.
I am affirming the traditional teachings on Justification, Sanctifiying Grace and salvation.
In individual cases God may know of a Lutheran who is justified and saved.It would not be known to us.The graces given to him for salvation; the helps to salvation given to the Lutheran who is saved would not be known to me.
In general I know that for salvation the Lutheran need Sanctifying Grace, perfect charity  and formal menbership in the Church for salvation (EENS, Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14? etc) This is the norm.
The  Lutheran-Catholic joint declaration on the doctrine of Justification is theologically based on physically known exceptions to EENS.The Balamand Declaration is based on this error.

Repent while you still have time, Lionel, and stop driving readers of Catholic Blogs crazy with your heresies. You know how many have banned you...get a clue

Lionel: It is the SSPX and the sedevacantists who are teaching irrationality and heresy with their new theology approved by Rome.
On Unam Sanctam Catholicam, Vox Cantoris, Rorate Caeili and other pro-SSPX blogs they assume that BOD is physically known and it must be accepted by all.
On the St. Benedict Center blog ( they also assume that BOD is explicit and relevant to EENS( but followed with the baptism of water) and that LG 16 is objectively known and so Vatican Council II contradicts Feeneyite EENS.
Louie Verrecchio recently has informed Miami Una Voce that UR 3 interpreted by liberal ecumenists, contradicst the teachings on the one, true Church. So of course Vatican Council II has to be rejected by him.
Then here I come and say that I accept BOD and I.I but they are not physically known for me, they are not explicit. I accept implicit for us baptism of desire which is explicit only for God.
So for me BOD and I.I and LG 16, LG 14 do not contradict the traditional interpretation of EENS and the old ecclesiiology on ecumenism and other religions.It does not contradict the traditional teachings on religious liberty and non separation of Church and State.
They don't know from where I am coming from!
This is contrary to the 50 years programming on Vatican Council II and the about 70 years re-programming on EENS.
-Lionel Andrades

No comments: