Thursday, July 21, 2016

SSPX lay supporter is now not sure if we can physically see baptism of desire cases in 2016

I have heard from the SSPX lay supporter with whom I have been having these discussions over the last few weeks via the Internet. It is clear to him that we physically cannot see cases of the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance without the baptism of water.Even if they exist they are known only to God.They are not part of our reality.But he does not want to be quoted.
So I asked him if I should quote him saying that physically we can see cases of the baptism of desire in 2016. I am waiting for his answer.
For me the hypothetical case of the desire for the baptism of water by an unknown catechumen who dies before receiving it and was saved  was never relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).It was a straw man from the beginning. It was part of a campaign by the enemies of the Church to eliminate the dogma EENS.They were successful. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1995) refers to EENS not as a dogma but an 'aphorism'(CCC 846)!The new theology of Rahner-Ratzinger is based on physically known baptism of desire.So this means there is salvation outside the Church and the dogma no more exists.
But all is not lost.
Being aware, that there are no physically visible cases of the baptism of desire(BOD) we can correct  Vatican Council II interpreted with the new theology.This is something which should have been done by the CDF but we cannot expect it from them any more.The Vatican Curia is officially teaching error, magisterial heresy,and Catholics are not correcting them on this point.Even this lay traditionalist, a supporter of the SSPX, is not willing to say in public that physically there are not known cases of BOD.

Louie Verrecchio, another traditionalist, who interprets Vatican Council II with physically known BOD and being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I),can reverse his position.Even if liberal ecumenists assume UR 3 means there is salvation outside the Church he can affirm UR 3 refers not to physically known cases in 2016.Let them interpret it as they want to but Louie can speak for himself.In public he could say that UR 3 does not refer to a physically known case.
Then Vatican Council II, UR 3 would refer to invisible cases.So UR 3 would not be an exception to Tradition.It  would not contradict EENS and the Syllabus of Errors.This should be his rational and traditional position with reference to UR 3. UR 3 is not an example of salvation outside the Church even though the ecumenists assume it is.

Similarly John Salza and Robert Siscoe in their book on sedevacantism assume there is a physically known BOD and I.I without the baptism of water.They could clarify that this was a mistake.There is no known salvation outside the Church.There are no physically known cases of I.I (Lumen Gentium 16) in 2016.
EENS is a de fide teaching and we cannot know of any exception  to the dogma. There cannot be any known salvation outiside the Church. LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc do not contradict the dogma EENS and the Syllabus of Errors.
1.So Vatican Council II dogmatically is not teaching anything new, it is affirming EENS according to to the 16th century missionaries and Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.
2.This would be asking the SSPX and the sedevacantists to review their doctrinal position on Vatican Council II.Since Vatican Council II would now be saying outside the Church there is no known salvation. It would not be saying as is generally thought that outside the Church there are known exceptions and UR 3 is a reference to it.
3.There is no known salvation outside the Church i.e there are no exceptions of physically known cases of BOD and invincible ignorance(I.I), or seeds of the Word(AG 11) or elements of sanctification and truth (LG 8) etc.
4.It was a mistake for Vatican Council II to mention BOD and I.I which is superflous.At most they could be hypothetical, speculative cases.
5.So the ecclessiology of Vatican Council II is really traditional. It is calling for an ecumenism of return and the need for non Christians  and non Catholics to convert into the Church to avoid Hell(AG 7, LG 14).
All Catholics could affirm Vatican Council II with physically invisible BOD and I.I. They are not visible to the naked eye.
In this way there will be harmony between the pre and post Vatican Council II ecclesiology.Presently the ecclesiology of Pope Benedict, for example, is a clear break with St.Robert Bellarmine,St. Francis Xavier,St. Francis of Assisi, St. Teresa of Avila, St.Maximillain Kolbe and most of the founders of the religious communities.They use the hemeneutic of rupture since they assume that BOD and I.I are physically known in the present times(2016).
-Lionel Andrades
 July 20, 2016

Can I quote you as saying that that there are no physically known cases of the baptism of desire in the present times(2016)? Is this something difficult for you?

No comments: