To reiterate: The issue is there are no physically visible cases of someone saved with the baptism of desire or blood or in invincible ignorance, without the baptism of water.There are no such cases in 2016 which we can see with the naked eye.Since it is not possible for human beings to physically see such cases, there are no such known cases in the past. There were none in 1949 when the Letter of the Holy Office was issued.We agree on this.
However while we both agree that there are no physically visible cases of the baptism of desire etc, since we cannot see the soul of a person, you are not willing to be quoted saying this.
No, Lionel, we still don't agree; I disagree with your following statements:
Lionel: The Church says BOD leads to salvation without the baptism of water(Letter of the Holy Office 1949 second part) and so the Church issaying there is salvation outside the Church
John: Because BOD joins one to the Church, which you have already conceded,
Lionel: BOD joins one to the Church is accepted as theoretical and hypothetical in a discussion. Remember I am still making the objective-subjective, explicit-distinction while you refuse to do so. You did not answer any of those questions in the summary ( red).The real issue still is BOD is always invisible and so Vatican Council II does not contradict the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS.The the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made a factual mistake.It suggested that there are exceptions to EENS. This has been accepted by the SSPX and the sedevantists.
Since BOD is invisible for me it is not an exception to EENS.
means BOD is not an exception to EENS.
Lionel: Hypothetically one may argue that BOD is not an exception to EENS since there are no defacto BOD cases.No one knows of a catechumen who desired the baptism of water and died before receiving it and was saved. This is a straw man. There is no such case to argue about.
For me BOD is not an exception to EENS since it is not physically visible.That 'famous catechumen' does not exist in our reality.
The person is still saved in and through the Church. Your conclusion that BOD is an "exception" to EENS just because it is not visible or experientially known is false. This is your key error.
Lionel: I repeat BOD is invisible for me so it is not an exception to EENS.There are no exceptions to EENS for me. I affirm the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS.For the Holy Office 1949 and the Archdiocese of Boston at that time, BOD was an exception to EENS:
You go on to say:The Church is saying every one does not need to be ' a card carrying member' of the Church.The Church says this even though neither you or I can personally know of this exception to the rule.
John: Yes! You have read the Church correctly. Yet, because you cannot see or have experiential knowledge of such a case, you incorrectly conclude that the Church erred. But the Church doesn't need to see a visible case (even though she did with St. Emerentiana) or have experiential knowledge of it to declare it to be true.
Lionel: You have agreed that there are no physical cases of the BOD.So there could be no one in the past who could have identified a BOD case.So how did 'the Church' see a visible case with St. Emerentiana?
Yes I have read the Church correctly in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 I say the Church made a mistake.The Letter does not consider BOD as hypothetical only. Instead it infers it is physically visible. Then it concludes that it is a 'practical exception' to EENS.This was the reasoning also in Vatican Council II.
You reject Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition.You are really saying that Vatican Council II is a break with EENS and the Syllabus of Errors.You are not aware that with physical BOD and I.U, Vatican Council II becomes a break with EENS. Since BOD and I.I are referred to in LG 14 and LG 16. It becomes a break with the traditional teachings on ecumenism and no salvation for non Christians.Religious liberty was based on there being no known salvation outside the Church and so there was the need for all to save their souls and enter the Church. So there was no separation of Church and State and all political legislation needed to have Jesus as known in the Catholic Church,as its center.
You still are not aware that you can reverse all these errors by understanding BOD and I.I as only be hypothetical.It's another perspective. In this way you do not contradict EENS.The Church's ecclesiology stays the same.It is still pre-Council of Trent on other religions,Christian communities and religious liberty.The teaching on the Social Reign of Christ the King would have no theological exceptions, as at present.The Nicene Creed also would have no theological exceptions when we pray, 'I believe in one baptism...'
At this point you are at the center of the whole controversy over Vatican Council II.
You then say:Neither could any one in the past know of this case of someone saved with BOD or I.I without the baptism of water.We both agree that there are no physically visible cases of someone saved without the baptism of water and so no one could claim over history that they saw such a case, such an
John: No, I never agreed to this. The Church canonized St. Emerentiana who died as a catechumen. Using your same logic that we must be able to see something to know it is true, no one saw St. Emerentiana die with water baptism; moreover, the Church said she died as a catechumen. Therefore, we must conclude she died without the water but is in Heaven. Use your own logic here, Lionel, and couple it with the Church's declaration of canonization.
Lionel:This is your logic and not mine.Your logic says the Church over the centuries said de fide that there is no salvation outside the Church, ( I have quoted the Popes and Church Fathers on extra ecclesiam nulla salus and you did not have a problem with it in my last message to you). Now 'the Church' (contemporary) is saying that 'the Church'(pre Council of Trent) in the past is wrong.St. Emerentiana is an exception.She has died without the baptism of water in the Church.This was personally verifiable by someone.So there is an exception to the old rule on salvation.
You conclude:So for me the Church( 1949) has made a mistake since there are no physical cases of BOD or I.I and for you the Church has not made a mistake. There is known salvation outside the Church, all do not need to enter the church visibly (with faith and baptism) in 2016.
John: You assert your error once again, claiming that because cases are invisible and not subject to your experiential knowledge, they do not exist in reality, and hence the Church erred.
Lionel: BOD cases are also invisible for you.Experientially you do not know of any case in 2016.You cannot say that any BOD case exists in 2016. You can cannot say that there was a BOD case over the last 70 years or more.
You have agreed that no one in the past could have seen, known or met a BOD case saved with or without the baptism of water in Heaven.So are you not saying, at least privately that the Letter(1949) made a mistake in suggesting that BOD was an exception to Feeneyite EENS.
Are you not saying, at least to yourself, that Vatican Council II was never an exception to EENS, UR 3 was not never an exception to EENS, as Louie Verrecchio suggests on his blog.( Why is it so difficult to comment on Louie Verrechio's mistake? It was one of the points in red ( summary) in our previous e-mail exchanges).
You also assert your second error that BOD is an exception to EENS based on the false premise of the absolute necessity of visible, experiential knowledge. These are your two key errors.
Lionel: How can invisible cases for us be an exception to EENS?. So how can UR 3 be an exception to EENS and the rest of Tradition for Louie Verrechio.It is an exception for Verrechio and those who consider BOD and I.I as being physically visible.
This brings us as close to the defects of your argumentation as possible. I hope you can see it now.
Lionel: You still have not answered the questions in the summary.
You are also refusing to say in public that there are no physically known cases of the BOD and I.l.You will not let me quote you.
Privately you say there are no physically known cases of BOD and I.I but then you indicate that St. Emerentiana was saved without the baptism of water and this was known to someone. This is contradictory.Either there are no physically known cases of BOD and I.I or there are such cases,you have to choose one position.
You also suggest that St. Emerentiana's case, something of the past, is an exception to EENS in 2016, otherwise you would not have mentioned her name. This is irrational. How can someone in the past be a physical exception to EENS in 2016.
You still refuse to say that LG 16 refers to invisible cases and so is not an exception or relevant to EENS.
Finally, this error is the modernism which was overlooked by Archbishop Lefebvre and it is still repeated today by Bishop Bernard Fellay and Bishop Richard Williamson and other bishops and priests of the SSPX.Is this the reason why you will not make the visible-invisible distinction?