An error was made in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and much of the Vatican Council II theology is based on this error.This is what I know

I have been studying and discussing this subject with people for over 20 years and never have I ever seen anyone so stuck in an endless, nonsensical loop as you are in. Please do not bring up the argument

again about "no known exceptions in 2016" - it shows you're not thinking clearly. I have already addressed that completely and I will no longer discuss such an absurd argument.

Lionel:

You agree that there are no known exceptions now or in the past to all needing the baptism of water in the Catholic Church for salvation,since they cannot be physically known, and yet you have a website on the baptism of desire which suggests just this!

______________________________________

You have agreed it is possible to be saved without the baptism of water in certain conditions. As a Catholic that's all you need to believe on this subject, so we are done discussing that.

Lionel:

Only when it is said that God is not limited.

The ordinary means of salvation is baptism in the Catholic Church.This is the norm. The norm is not the baptism of desire.

___________________________________

The Church teaches that we must believe that which is de fide.

Lionel:

The three Church Council  defined extra ecclesiam nulla salus,as de fide and did not mention any baptism of desire ( visible or invisble) as an exception to the dogma EENS.So you should close down your website.

In your mind, the baptism of desire is still visible and known in personal cases.This is how you interpret the popes and saints.

__________________________________

 The First Vatican Council states that what is de fide includes 1)solemn declarations made by the Church, and 2) what the Fathers and theologians have held unanimously (ordinary magisterium). On my website I have examples of both: 1) the Council of Trent and 2) all

other quotes on the website.

Lionel:

However you are interpreting them as being practical exceptions to EENS here is where the problem arises.

Please put a disclaimer saying that the references to the baptism of desire on your website are to hypothetical cases known only to God and in no way do you consider them exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS.

Since you have agreed with me that there are no known exceptions to EENs, there cannot be any physically known case of the baptism of desire in 2016.

____________________________________

 BOTH are de fide according to Vatican I and Canon law. If any of the theologians were in error, we have to guarantee from Scripture that the Holy Ghost would see to it that they were condemned. You are completely ignoring this which is destroying your credibility.

Lionel:

If the theologians,and you, assume that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma EENS, then you infer that the BOD refers to a known case in 2016, for it to be an exception to EENS. So I have to keep reminding you that you have said that there are no known exceptions to EENS in 2016.

___________________________________

Baptism was not solemnly defined until the 13th century, so there was no "dogma" for the first 13 centuries of Catholicism. So what did Catholics use in the first 13 centuries as de fide teaching on the subject of baptism? They used teachings from the Fathers and theologians.

Lionel:

Jesus refers to the necessity of the baptism of water in John 3:5.

_____________________________________

So you need not keep talking about "the dogma", because it did not exist for the first 13 centuries of the Church.

Lionel:

The dogma reflects a teaching of the Holy Spirit.It reflects Jesus' teaching in the Scripture. It is not made out of the blue.It is based on Scripture,Tradition and the past magisterium.

____________________________________

When the Church has taught baptism of desire, it means the person has died and was still saved WITHOUT water. As for the requirement of baptism of water occurring after baptism of desire, NOWHERE does the Church teach this.

Lionel:

The Church has always taught the necessity of the baptism of water for all with no exception.Now when liberal theologians, and you, interpret the baptism of desire as referring to an exception to the dogma EENS; as being without the baptism of water, as if you could know of every such case, then I say,'O.K.There is a baptism of desire and it will be followed by the baptism of water'.

___________________________________

This is a fabricated belief created by the Feeneyites. You will not find this in a single Catholic book so you shouldn't be preaching it to people - it has never been a Catholic belief, ever.

Lionel:

For me it is a reaction to the irrationaity of assuming there is a known case of a catechumen who was saved with the desire for the baptism of water and died without visbly receiving the baptism of water. There is no known case presently or in the past.I am only accomodating your error by still affirming the necessity of the baptism of water with no known exceptions in the present times.

_________________________________

The fact that you admit that Vatican II has errors in it and at the same time you still believe it is valid shows you do not understand your faith.

Lionel:

These are not the errors listed by the the SSPX and the traditionalists.For me mentioning the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance with reference to orthodox passages which support the dogma EENS in Vatican Council II(AG 7, LG 14) was an error.

However even though an error was made in mentioning them at Vatican Council II, we can interpret BOD and I.I as referring to hypothetical cases, which they are, and so they are not exceptions or relevant to the orthdox passages (all need faith and baptism-AG 7).Neither are they exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS; as it was known to the 16th century missionaries.

___________________________________

 All true General Councils are guaranteed infallible by the Church -do you not believe this? All Catholic books say it. If there is an error in a General Council, it is guaranteed not from the Church.

Lionel:

An error was made in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and much of the Vatican Council II theology is based on this error.This is what I know.

-Lionel Andrades