No matter how many times I read what you wrote, I
cannot comprehend the logic you are using. Baptism of desire presumes that the
person has not received baptism of water. There is no such thing as
someone having been baptized with water who then can receive baptism of desire
or blood.
Lionel:
The baptism
of desire is not a de fide teaching of the Church it is not a dogma of the
Church. It is said with God all things are possible and God is not limited to
the Sacraments. So in this sense a person can receive the baptism of desire
without the baptism of water. However if God is God and can do what he wants
then he can also save a person with the baptism of desire followed by the
baptism of water in a manner known to him.
Anyway that all
need the baptism of water for salvation is the de fide teaching.
______________________________ ______________
And again, you asked me this question: "However do
you know of a known case of the baptism of desire past or present?". And again I
will answer that NO one can possibly know of a known case of baptism of desire,
past or present, because it takes place after death and ONLY God knows when it
happens. So you need not ask that question of anyone anymore, because no one can
possibly answer the question. You're getting hung up on something that you
shouldn t be getting hung up on.
Lionel:
O.K so we agree
that there are no physically known cases of the baptism of desire or being saved
in invincible ignorance, with or without the baptism of water, in 2016.This is
common knowledge.
______________________________ _______________
As for Vatican II, it contradicts Church teaching
that came before it, so it cannot be a true Council.
Lionel:
Not for me.It does
not contradict the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla
salus(EENS). This is important. So there is no change in an ecumenism of return
and that all need faith and baptism for salvation , there being no known
exceptions in 2016.It supports the old ecclesiology, the Syllabus of Errors and
the Catechism of Pope Pius X.
______________________________ ________________
This means the CCC is not trustworthy.
Lionel:
The CCC
reflects Vatican Council II which does not contradict EENS and the old
ecclesiology, that of the 16th century missionaries.
__________________ ________________
So for the sake of discussion, let's focus on the
catechism of Pope St. Pius X for the moment. You stated, "The Catechism of Pope
Pius X says all need to be incorporated into the Church as members while the
Letter of the Holy Office 1949 says the opposite." This is incorrect; the
catechism of Pope St. Pius X does not say this. Here are two applicable
quotes from it:
The Creed, Ninth Article, The Church in
Particular: 29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the
Church, can he be saved?
A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of
his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at
least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely
seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed
separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church
and consequently is on the way of salvation"
O.K.Fine. It
does not contradict Feeneyite EENS so far.
______________________________ _________
Baptism, Necessity of Baptism and Obligations
of the Baptized: 17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other
way?
A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by
martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of
God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of
Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
Lionel:
O.K hypothetically it is
possible to be saved without the baptism of water in certain conditions.It still
does not contradict Feeneyite EENS. Since hypothetical cases cannot be
exceptions to the dogma EENS in 2016 unless we can physically see these cases.We
both agree that we cannot do so.
______________________________ __________
The letter of the Holy Office from 1949 says exactly
the same thing where it states:
"Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation,
it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a
member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and
longing. However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is
in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God
accepts also an implicit desire". It then explains further
down:
"But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity."
"But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity."
Lionel:
'that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is
not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a
member,'.
He is referring to a defacto case here.
He is saying there is a physically knowable or known case in
the present times (1949).
Otherwise how can he say that it is not always
required...?
Why would he criticize Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict
Center who held the 'rigorist'interpretation of the dogma EENS?
______________________________ ________
Lionel, you are
misinterpreting Pope St. Pius X's catechism or the letter from the Holy Office -
they both say the same thing. Pope Pius XII would not blatantly and publicly
contradict Pope St. Pius X for all the world to see.
Lionel:
For me
the magisterial documents are Feeneytite, also for you?
If it is the
same thing then why do you not support Feeneyism as I express it? -Lionel Andrades
No comments:
Post a Comment