So can I quote you as saying that that there are no physically known cases of the baptism of desire in the present times(2016)?

CONTINUED

Lionel, you have consistently avoided my rebuttals and interrogatories entirely. 

You have failed to produce the dogmatic definition from the Church which says that baptism of desire is always followed by water, even though I have repeatedly asked for this (you produce only statements on EENS, even though you also claim that EENS is not relevant to BOD). THAT IS BECAUSE NO SUCH DOGMATIC DEFINITION EXISTS. 

Lionel: Exactly.No such definition exists. Since when the dogma was defined it was not the fashion or stupidity to consider BOD as being explicit.

In general the dogma says all need the baptism of water. So if you refer to a hypothetical case saved with the baptism of desire,this imaginary person would be saved with supernatural faith, perfect charity, the desire for the baptism of water and the baptism of water.We are referring to a speculative case. In real life there is no known catechumen who we know who dies before he receives the baptism of water and is saved.The baptism of desire in itself is a classic strawman.

_______________________________

You have failed to respond to my interrogatory whether St. Thomas Aquinas was a heretic. THAT IS BECAUSE ST. THOMAS TAUGHT THAT BOD JOINS ONE TO THE CHURCH FOR SALVATION,

Lionel: We agree here.He was not a heretic.

He affirmed the 'rigorist interpretation' of the dogma EENS.If he says BOD joins one to the Church for salvation I do not have a problem with it.

 WITHOUT THE WATER, 

Lionel: If he said without water then he was wrong.Though I am not familiar with the text where he said the person could be saved without water.Instead he said the man in the forest in ignorance would not be saved without the baptism of water since God would send a preacher.

Possibly the same liberals who wrongly say that St. Thomas Aquinas said the man in the forest in ignorance will be saved without the baptism of water are saying the same thing about Aquinas and BOD.

_________________________________

AND YOU HOLD THAT AS HERETICAL, BUT DON'T HAVE THE GUTS TO CALL ST. THOMAS A HERETIC.

Lionel: If he said the baptism of desire was explicit or that being saved in invincible ignorance was explicit and excluded the baptism of water, then this conclusion would be heretical. However if a pope or saint in good will is referring to a hypothetical case, then it is mere speculation.It is not relevant  to EENs in the present times,since it is not a defacto case.

__________________________________ 

You also confuse St. Thomas' example of one in invincible ignorance with a catechumen, like St. Emerentiana, who was not in invincible ignorance.

Lionel: There is no connection between St.Thomas' example of the man in the forest in ignorance or St. Emerentiana as a catechumen.

Hypothetically for me, all need the baptism of water for salvation. In Heaven there are only Catholics and they are there with faith and the baptism of water.

_____________________________________ 

 This, in your mind, helps you avoid St. Thomas' "heresy." It's quite easy to see what you are doing. Unfortunately for you, everyone knows that BOD cases and invincible ignorance cases are completely different cases.

Lionel:

Theoretically we differentiate them. In real life we do not know of any such case, saved. De facto they do not exist for us human beings.

_________________________________________

 But you want to merge them together based on your false reading of St. Thomas, and then long jump to the false conclusion that everyone saved gets the water. Again, we can see through your illogical and erroneous argumentation. 

You fail to understand that whether cases of BOD are invisible or not is IRRELEVANT to whether BOD joins one to the Church for salvation, as the Church herself has declared. And you even refer to people like John Martignoni to support your argument, even though Martignoni completely rejects your position on BOD! 

Lionel: You have said in your last e-mail that there are no physical cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), Martignoni is saying the same thing. So am I.

That's all. There are no physical cases of the BOD and the rest falls in line.

You have agreed that the baptism of desire cases are physically invisible.

__________________________________________

You deny that St. Emerentiana died as a catechumen even though the Church said she did. 

Lionel: I mentioned in the last e-mail that I accept that St. Emerentiana is a saint and she is a catechumen.This does not mean she has not received the baptism of water, after God sent a preacher( Aquinas) or she was baptised after she died( St.Francis Xavier).So it is not an issue for me, if she died as a catechumen.

_____________________________________________

Your errors have been exposed. 

Lionel: You have not answered any of the questions I asked in the summary of the last e-mail response.Instead you are mentioning issues which I have already answered in previous e-mails.

Straw man arguments of baptism of desire (BOD) with reference to extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) when there are no BOD cases - 3

SUMMARY
1. So when you attend Mass, LG 16 ( invincible ignorance) is an exception to EENS. So Vatican Council II contradicts EENS for you?

2. Would UR 3 be an exception to EENS?

3.For Louie Verrechio there are explicit cases of someone being saved in 'imperfect communion with the Church' (UR 3). So he is critical of UR 3?

4.In your ecclesiology all need to enter the Church in 2016 except for cases of the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance?

5. We humans cannot know of any catechumen who died before he received the baptism of water and was saved ?

6.The Nicene Creed and the Athanasius Creed do not mention the baptism of desire ?

7.When Louie Verrecchio, Una Voce and liberal ecumenists assume UR 3 ( see above) contradicts the dogma EENS and the Syllabus of Errors, is this rational for you? A rational interpretation?
8.Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops overlooked this modernism i.e physically explicit for us baptism of desire which is an exeption to  the dogma EENS?

_________________________________________

Straw man arguments of baptism of desire (BOD) with reference to extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) when there are no BOD cases - 2

SUMMARY:
1.You have said that the baptism of desire cases are physically invisible for us human beings.
2.So you are affirming EENS according to St. Robert Bellarmine since BOD is not physically visible and there are no personally known cases of someone saved in invincible ignorance without the baptism of water?
3.The SSPX official website which mentions Feeneyism and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 assumes BOD refers to physically known cases ?
4.The Vatican Curia wants the SSPX to interpret Vatican Council II with physically known cases of LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc, which are exceptions to EENS and the rest of Tradition? On this depends permission for canonical status?

___________________________________________________

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

SUMMARY
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?

_____________________________________________

You are correct on one thing. We cannot continue the dialogue because you continue to skip over the most obvious defects in your argumentation, and respond with the same, already-refuted arguments. I suggest you read our book...from beginning to end, so that you develop a true and correct ecclesiology, according to the classical theologians, which will lead you out of your error concerning baptism of desire, and how God joins man to the Church for salvation. 

Lionel: 
Are you saying all this to avoid answering those questions in red.Is this some form of distraction?

_______________________________________________

In fact, I challenge you to read our chapters on ecclesiology and BOD and, if you still disagree with us, put your rebuttal in writing, like a real scholar.

Lionel: As a Catholic could you be honest and say that you do not want to answer the questions in red due to a personal reason ? 

_________________________________

 And then we will deal with your arguments accordingly. Are you game?

Lionel: What arguments? You have been going around in circles.In the last e-mail you agreed that there are no physical cases of the baptism of desire.Simply confirm this. That's all.

It is from this point that I go back to the old ecclesiology and it is from this point Ratzinger, Rahner, Kung and others go into the new theology.This is the crucial point which decides the sedevacantism of the sedevacantists based on Vatican Council II ( with or without physical BOD).It is this point which decides if the SSPX gets canonical status for accepting Vatican Council II ( with or without the physical BOD).

It is on this point that we know that for Louie Verrecchio, UR 3 is an exception to EENS and Tradition.Since UR 3 refers to a physical case, a physically known UR 3 for Louie.If he would agree that UR 3 cannot be physical, then UR 3 would not contradict the dogma EENS and the Syllabus of Errors.It's as simple as that.

So can I quote you as saying that that there are no physically known cases of the baptism of desire in the present times(2016)? 

Lionel Andrades

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 - 3

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/07/straw-man-arguments-of-baptism-of_20.html