Thursday, March 16, 2017

Pope Benedict XVI and the other liberal theologians( Rahner, Kung etc) made an objective mistake. Based on bad philosophy they created a new bad theology

Substitutes for the Sacrament
(No Substitutes for the Sacrament.
Theoretically one may assume there could be an exception but de facto there are no exceptions.)
The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament.
Yes only the first is a real Sacrament.
Also we cannot administer the other two as we can the baptism of water.
The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins.
It is believed as such.However it is understood that there are no personally known cases since only God would know who is saved and not saved.
 It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood.
It is hoped so.There is no known case, no concrete case.So this is still a theoretical subject.It is speculated with good will.
(1) The Baptism of Desire
The baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) is a perfect contrition of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure love of God which contains, at least implicitly, a desire (votum) of baptism. The Latin word flamen is used because Flamen is a name for the Holy Ghost, Whose special office it is to move the heart to love God and to conceive penitence for sin. The “baptism of the Holy Ghost” is a term employed in the third century by the anonymous author of the book “De Rebaptismate”. The efficacy of this baptism of desire to supply the place of the baptism of water, as to its principal effect, is proved from the words of Christ. After He had declared the necessity of baptism (John 3), He promised justifying grace for acts of charity or perfect contrition (John 14): “He that loveth Me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him and will manifest myself to him.” And again: “If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him.” Since these texts declare that justifying grace is bestowed on account of acts of perfect charity or contrition, it is evident that these acts supply the place of baptism as to its principal effect, the remission of sins. This doctrine is set forth clearly by the Council of Trent. In the fourteenth session (cap. iv) the council teaches that contrition is sometimes perfected by charity, and reconciles man to God, before the Sacrament of Penance is received.
This is still a reference to a hypothetical case. So there is no problem here.
However when the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston assumed that the baptism of desire was an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, then the baptism of desire was no more a hypothetical case. Since a hypothetical case cannot be a concrete exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. An exception must exist in our reality.
 In the fourth chapter of the sixth session, in speaking of the necessity of baptism, it says that men can not obtain original justice “except by the washing of regeneration or its desire” (voto). The same doctrine is taught by Pope Innocent III (cap. Debitum, iv, De Bapt.), and the contrary propositions are condemned by Popes Pius V and Gregory XII, in proscribing the 31st and 33rd propositions of Baius.
We have already alluded to the funeral oration pronounced by St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II, a catechumen. The doctrine of the baptism of desire is here clearly set forth. St. Ambrose asks: “Did he not obtain the grace which he desired? Did he not obtain what he asked for? Certainly he obtained it because he asked for it.” St. Augustine (IV, De Bapt., xxii) and St. Bernard (Ep. lxxvii, ad H. de S. Victore) likewise discourse in the same sense concerning the baptism of desire. If it be said that this doctrine contradicts the universal law of baptism made by Christ (John 3), the answer is that the lawgiver has made an exception (John 14) in favor of those who have the baptism of desire.
If there was an exception it would be known to God alone. There are no exceptions known to us human beings. So this is still speculation, something said in good faith.However for the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 it was not simply speculation.It was a concrete case. So the Letter stated that not every one needs to be incorporated into the Catholic Church as a member. This is irrational reasoning and it creates a new theology.It rejects the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and is magisterial heresy.
 Neither would it be a consequence of this doctrine that a person justified by the baptism of desire would thereby be dispensed from seeking after the baptism of water when the latter became a possibility.
The discussion is still theoretical. This is still speculation in general, it should be noted, to avoid confusion.
 For, as has already been explained the baptismus flaminis contains the votum of receiving the baptismus aquæ. It is true that some of the Fathers of the Church arraign severely those who content themselves with the desire of receiving the sacrament of regeneration, but they are speaking of catechumens who of their own accord delay the reception of baptism from unpraiseworthy motives. Finally, it is to be noted that only adults are capable of receiving the baptism of desire.
(2) The Baptism of Blood
The baptism of blood (baptismus sanquinis) is the obtaining of the grace of justification by suffering martyrdom for the faith of Christ. The term “washing of blood” (lavacrum sanguinis) is used by Tertullian (De Bapt., xvi) to distinguish this species of regeneration from the “washing of water” (lavacrum aquæ). “We have a second washing”, he says “which is one and the same [with the first], namely the washing of blood.” St. Cyprian (Ep. lxxiii) speaks of “the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood” (sanguinis baptismus). St. Augustine (De Civ. Dei, XIII, vii) says: “When any die for the confession of Christ without having received the washing of regeneration, it avails as much for the remission of their sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of baptism.”
They could be saved with the baptism of blood however God would supply what is needed. In Heaven there are only baptised-Catholics.The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 however inferred that the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance were exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is irrational firstly since there are no practical exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church, we cannot meet or see any one in Heaven saved with the baptism of blood and without the baptism of water.Secondly, the saints tell us that after death there are people who have been baptised with water or before or after death God would send a preacher to teach and baptise the person who was to be saved(St.Francis Xavier/St.Thomas Aquinas).
The Church grounds her belief in the efficacy of the baptism of blood on the fact that Christ makes a general statement of the saving power of martyrdom in the tenth chapter of St. Matthew: “Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven” (verse 32); and: “He that shall lose his life for me shall find it” (verse 39). It is pointed out that these texts are so broadly worded as to include even infants, especially the latter text. That the former text also applies to them, has been constantly maintained by the Fathers, who declare that if infants can not confess Christ with the mouth, they can by act. Tertullian (Adv. Valent., ii) speaks of the infants slaughtered by Herod as martyrs, and this has been the constant teaching of the Church.
Another evidence of the mind of the Church as to the efficacy of the baptism of blood is found in the fact that she never prays for martyrs. Her opinion is well voiced by St. Augustine (Tr. lxxiv in Joan.): “He does an injury to a martyr who prays for him.” This shows that martyrdom is believed to remit all sin and all punishment due to sin. Later theologians commonly maintain that the baptism of blood justifies adult martyrs independently of an act of charity or perfect contrition, and, as it were, ex opere operato, though, of course, they must have attrition for past sins. The reason is that if perfect charity, or contrition, were required in martyrdom, the distinction between the baptism of blood and the baptism of desire would be a useless one. Moreover, as it must be conceded that infant martyrs are justified without an act of charity, of which they are incapable, there is no solid reason for denying the same privilege to adults. (Cf. Francisco Suárez, De Bapt., disp. xxxix.)
Written by William H.W. Fanning. Transcribed by Charles Sweeney, S.J..
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume II. Published 1907. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York
So the baptism of desire and blood are not exceptions or relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was interpreted by the 16th century missionaries. There is no development of the dogma with Vatican Council II as Pope Benedict XVI mentioned last March 2016.There would be a development of doctrine only if the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance were explicit, seen in the flesh cases, saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. We all would agree that there are no such cases known in reality and neither does this report above make this wrong claim. So there is no development of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with Vatican Council II since LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22, AG 11 etc refer to hypothetical and invisible cases in 2017.They are not relevant or exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and they never ever were.Pope Benedict XVI and the other liberal theologians( Rahner, Kung etc) made an objective mistake. Based on bad philosophy( visible cases of the baptism of desire and blood saved without the baptism of water) they created a new bad theology( there are visible exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was interpreted over the centuries).-Lionel Andrades

March 12, 2017
Catholic-Protestant debates, discussions use irrational theology of Cushingism: Scott Hahn, Kenneth Samples unaware of magisterial error

March 11, 2017
UnknownEnglish Christian theologians nonplussed : first exposure to factual errors in Vatican Council II

March 10, 2017

University of Nottingham professor maintains invisible cases are visible : irrational inference not professional or ethical

March 15, 2017

Pope Benedict XVI means there is known salvation outside the Church when he states 'when they can be saved even without it?” '. He is a Cushingite. He assumes invisible cases are visible.

March 13, 2017
Muslims and Protestants could help bring sincerity in inter religous dialogue for Catholics

Bishop Bernard Fellay (CNS photo)

November 18, 2015

So many have committed suicide in Paris since Catholic religious leaders have not told them there is a big surprise waiting for them : SSPX is prudently silent too

MARCH 4, 2017

English universities present a lie on Catholic theology and doctrine - unethical for academics

MARCH 8, 2017

No denial from Archbishop Kevin Mcdonald, Tom O' Loughlin : there is an objective error in the text of Vatican Council II


No comments: