Wednesday, July 20, 2016

Straw man arguments of baptism of desire (BOD) with reference to extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) when there are no BOD cases - 1

John: I addressed your errors already.
Lionel: What is the error ?Please be precise
John 2: I said errors, in the plural, because they are many. For starters:
1. Your claim that BOD does not join one to the Church for salvation, contrary to the teaching of the council of Trent, its catechism, and many other authorities.
Lionel: I am saying that you can believe the baptism of desire (BOD) joins one to the Church or the St. Benedict Centers can believe that it joins one to the Church with the baptism of water.I Lionel, however is saying that  BOD has nothing to do with the dogma EENS since it is always invisible for us in present times and in the past.
You still will not make the invisible-visible distinction and are going in circles.
I am not going to get into all your straw man arguments of BOD with relation to EENs when there are no BOD cases.

2. Your claim that BOD is necessarily and always followed by the water, even though you cannot point to a single Magisterial statement supporting same.
Lionel: This is important for you and the SSPX and the SBC.
When I say that the dogma EENS and Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) says all need the baptism of water, it is not enough for you.O.K, EENS and Vatican Council II is not acceptable for you.It is the same with the liberals.

3. Your claim that water baptism is an absolute, and not just a relative necessity, contrary to the entire Tradition of the Church.
Lionel: The entire Tradition of the Church for centuries made this claim based upon John 3:5, Mk.16:16 and the dogma EENS defined by three Church Councils.

4. Your claim that if something is invisible to humans means it does not exist in reality, contrary to logic, metaphysics, theology and other disciplines.
Lionel: Good point. According to your logic and metaphysics the baptism of desire cases are invisible and they exist in your reality!
This is why it has been difficult entering into a dialogue. Since our reality, our logic and concept of metaphysics is different.
We first have to agree on what is reality and then we can begin a dialogue.I know your intentions are good but this is our reality.

5. Your claim that the pre-conciliar Church did not teach that BOD joined one to the Church (which we disprove in our book).
Lionel: Since our reality is different and you do not make the explicit-implicit distinction you can misunderstand or not understand me here.
Are you referring to BOD visible or invisible in 2016 in the USA? You need to define your terms to avoid confusion.
You know my concept of BOD it is always invisible for me. It is not an objective case in 2016.This is my reality.

6. Your claim that the post-conciliar Church "authoritatively" contradicted the pre-conciliar Church on BOD.
Lionel: Yes.This seems obvious for me since the post Council of Trent Church interprets BOD as being explicit and an exception to EENS.They now even interpret EENs and Vatican Council II with this irrationality. So when I go for Mass, EENS and Vatican Council II are in harmony but when you and others are at Mass it is a different faith.For me your position and that of the contemporary magisterium is heretical.
You have to pretend that the pre Council of Trent magisterium also interpreted EENS like you, that is, there are exceptions of the baptism of desire etc - since these cases are explicit and objective to be exceptions, even though they are in Heaven!

7. Your rejection of St. Thomas Aquinas, the Universal Doctor of the Church, on BOD, not to mention countless other saints, doctors and Popes.
Lionel: I make the distinction between BOD explicit and implicit, objective and hypothetical.St. Thomas Aquinas supports my view since he affirmed the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.He held the strict interpretation of EENs.
The liberal theologians interpret his reference to the man in the forest in ignorance, as being a known case and an exception to St. Thomas' traditional understanding of EENs. This is the SSPX and your position too.
For me, St. Thomas Aquinas' man in the forest is always a hypthetical case and so is not relevant to his interpretation of EENs. He himself says that if God is to save that person he would send a preacher.
For you the man in the forest in invincible ignorance is an explicit case. So you would assume that St. Thomas contradicts my 'rigorist' position on EENS.

8. Your rejection of the Church's canonization of St. Emerentiana as a catechumen, and not as among the baptized members of the Church.
Lionel: I do not reject the canonisation.
I reject the inference that she is in Heaven without the baptism of water and so contradicts the dogma EENs. Since no one on earth could have physically seen  her in Heaven saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. No one on earth could have known if God had sent a preacher to her to have her baptised( Aquinas) or have her sent back to earth only to be baptised( St. Francis Xavier).

Was that precise enough for you?
Lionel: No. Please re-formulate these points clarifying if you mean the BOD is objective or hypothetical, known in the present times or unknown, visible or invisible.
Then you would be precise.

John: You have created a straw man to knock down and then claim victory.
Lionel:What is the straw man please be specific.
John2: Sure, your straw man is your claim that because we cannot see BOD cases (we can't see the soul), they do not exist, and then claim victory because we concede that we cannot actually see BOD in someone's soul.
Lionel: So you agree or do not agree with me here. You cannot see the soul and you cannot see a physical case of BOD. If BOD is relevant or an exception to EENS, there would have to be a physical case.It would have to be seen and known by people. Someone who does not exist in human reality cannot be an exception or even relevant to EENS.
This is simple reasoning. I have quoted you Cartholic relgious and lay people supporting me here.Why do you call this a straw man?
Even a non Catholic would agree with me here?
-Lionel Andrades

1.Does the baptism of desire refer to physically invisible cases for you ?
2. Would they always physically invisible to the naked eye even in the past?

No comments: