To be honest, I am at a loss to understand your reasoning. There seems to be a lot of problems with it. Reality is not limited to what we can see. For example, have you ever seen an angel, or sanctifying grace? If not, why do you believe they exist? You believe it because the Church teaches it.
Lionel:Yes in faith we accept this.This is the traditional teaching of the Church.
But the Church also teaches that a person can be saved without water baptism. If you believe this teaching is incompatible with the Catholic Faith (contrary to EENS), then you must accuse the Church of leading people into error, since it teaches that they can.
Lionel: Yes I have referred to magisterial heresy which contradicts what the Church taught over the centuries. When you'll blame Vatican Council II for contradicting Tradition, the SSPX and the sedevacantists are saying the same thing as me.Only I am pointing my finger at the exact cause of this break with Tradition.
And if you concede the theology, but then argue that no such cases actually exists, and that if one holds that such a case does exist, they are heretics (because their position is contrary to ENS), then you are again accusing the Church of leading people into error, since the Church explicitly teaches that people CAN be saved by BOD.
Lionel: The theology, the new theology is in error since it is based on explicit exceptions to EENS.The magisterium accepted this error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
'... how can you say what our position is? ...(on)... the Church's theology, quoting the Fathers, Popes, catechisms and theological manuals (all of which are perfectly consistent).
Lionel: The theological manuals,catechisms and popes are interpreted with the new theology which has a fault and is not traditional.The interpretation is based on physically visible baptism of desire (BOD) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I).Indirectly I know that this is your theology. The questions in red ( summary) were not answered.This was a give away.We have a pro-SSPX layman, a traditionalist, who in public is not willing to say that there are no physically visible BOD cases in 2016.This is further confirmation of the error.
The idea that there has to be "physically visible" cases of individuals being saved by BOD, and that if there are not physically visible cases, it has never happened, is not a good argument.
Lionel: It is not an argument. It is not theology.
It is a physical description of our reality.It is about the physical laws of nature.It is about agreeing upon Newtons Laws of physics.It refers to our common understanding of the laws of light, movement, mass, velocity.It is agreeing upon a given.
The Buddhists and Hindus may not have my faith in Purgatory.However the Buddhists and Hindus would agree with my physical description of reality, the physical laws of nature.They are common to all people.
To suggest that BOD is relevant or an exception to EENS (Letter of the Holy Office 1949) would infer that there are physically known cases of persons saved in 2016 with the baptism of desire. Otherwise how would BOD be relevant to EENS. This would contradict the laws of nature which are common to all people. How can someone say that the BOD is an exception to EENS, or that every one needs to enter the Church except for persons with the baptism of desire(BOD)? Since this infers that we can physically see these persons in Heaven or on earth.This is contrary to the physical laws of nature which are common for Catholics and non Catholics.
Can you provide a physically visible case of a person in hell, purgatory or Limbo? If not, why do you believe anyone has ever gone to heaven, purgatory or Limbo?
Lionel: In faith I believe this.I believe this with Catholic faith.
But I cannot believe that there is a physically known baptism of desire.Since according to the laws of nature we cannot see such a case.I am not compelled to accept this irrationality even as a Catholic.
As a Catholic I need to admit that this is a falsehood and is a deception.
As an honest Catholic, would you agree that there are no physically known cases of BOD and I.I in 2016 and could you say so in public? Can I quote you?
Lastly, I am pretty sure you hold the position you do because you believe that if a person was saved by BOD it would constitute an "exception" to EENS.
Lionel: It would not constitute an exception to EENs for me since I do not know of any physically visible BOD case.BOD is always invisible for me so it is not an exception to the dogma EENS.
Similarly, UR 3 is not an exception to EENS for me, as it is for Louie Verrecchio.
But that is not correct either. The Church does not understand EENS as meaning that a person has to be a card carrying Catholics.
Lionel: Agreed.This is the contemporary Church's position. It is based on physically visible BOD and I.I ( invincible ignorance) all without the baptism of water.Since there is physically visible BOD every one does not have to be a card carrying member of the Church, as you indicate.
All that is required is that they are joined to the Church, either perfectly (as a card carrying Catholic), or imperfectly...
Lionel: Only hypothetically, speculatively both could suffice.Defacto, every one needs to enter the Church with faith and baptism and to remain in it.Since there are no physically known BOD or I.I cases in real life to contradict the de fide teaching on all needing to be visible members of the Church; all needing faith and baptism.They both are visible in their expression.They can be checked and repeated, defacto.
I was thinking about your e-mails last night. Here is what I think your position should be. You should says, "based on the Church's theology, it is possible for a person to be saved without water baptism, but I don't think it has ever happened." If you say that, I would not argue with you, even though there are cases on saints who died as catechumens. But if you claim that the notion that some individuals have been saved by BOD is heretical, then you are implicitly accusing the Church of leading people into error, since it explicitly teaches that people can be saved in this fashion.
Lionel: Yes I am saying that the contemporary Church is leading Catholics astray since their new theology is based on physically visible BOD and I.I.
We can check out this error in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
1. If I assume that BOD and I.I are not physically visible in 2016 then they are not exceptions to the dogma EENs on exclusive salvation in the Church.Since there are no exceptions all need to visibly and formally enter the Church.This is my position. This is how I interpret Vatican Council II.
2. When you and the cardinals and bishops of the Vatican Curia in 2016, assume that BOD (Lumen Gentium 14) 1 and Invincible ignorance ( Lumen Gentium 16) are physically visible in 2016 in known persons then they are exceptions to the dogma EENS on exclusive salvation in the Church.So all do not need to visibly enter the Church.
For Louie Verrecchio for example, UR 3 contradicts the traditional teachings on the one, true faith.
Have you noticed that physically visible or invisible BOD here has produced two different conclusions in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
So one of the two interpretations(1 or 2) has an error.They both cannot be correct.
One premise and conclusion is wrong.
One of the two interpretations is that of the Church, the contemporary Church.
Lastly,...a little-known story of a person who was saved by BOD, and the Cure of Ars was involved in it. And this person was a Jew who had definitely not been baptized.
Lionel: Hypothetically a Jew can be saved in his religion. When he is in Heaven he would be a Catholic.God would have sent a preacher to him( St. Thomas Aquinas) or have him baptised after he dies( St. Francis Xavier).So this case would not be telling us that there is salvation outside the Church, or that there are exceptions to the dogma EENS.In Heaven there are only Catholics.-Lionel Andrades
Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.-Lumen Gentium 14