Wednesday, October 12, 2016

Catechism of the Catholic Church reflects Vatican Council II which does not contradict EENS and the old ecclesiology, that of the 16th century missionaries.

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.
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.

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.
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.
 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.
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."
'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.
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: