Thursday, October 26, 2017

I accept the baptism of desire. I also accept extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the missionaries of the 16th century.

  1. Comments on the blog TradCat Knight
  2. You could comment on this.

    OCTOBER 25, 2017
    Louie Verrecchio, Ann Barnhardt and David Domet have probably not understood me since they do not agree or disagree with me : four 'red pills'
So I accept the baptism of desire. I also accept extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the missionaries of the 16th century.
Trent does not state that the baptism of desire refers to someone visible and known in the present times, someone whom I can see or meet. I accept this.I still agree with Trent.
Trent only mentions the possibility of someone receiving the desire since may be he could not receive the baptism of water and he dies and is saved. This is fine with me too. It is a hypothetical case. It is a possibility, it is speculation with good will. This is acceptable for me since it is not a knowable case. So it is not an exception to the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation and it is not an example of salvation outside the Church.
So I am comfortable with not only the baptism of desire, but also the baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance.
Like LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, GS 22, NA 2 they all refer to hypothetical cases. This is something obvious. So LG 16 is not a rupture with the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church for me. Vatican Council II is not a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors since there is no break with the old exclusivist understanding of salvation in the Catholic Church. So for me there can only be an ecumenism of return, since there is no known salvation outside the Church. Also all non Christians and non Catholics would need to convert into the Church as members to avoid Hell, since there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
So I am affirming the baptism of desire and outside the Church there is no salvation.
For me the Holy Office 1949 made a mistake in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case when it assumed BOD, BOB and I.I referred to visible and known cases. They then inferred that these 'known' cases were examples of salvation outside the Church.This was irrational.
Similarly Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger made a mistake in the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre when they wanted him to accept Vatican Council II as a rupture with Tradition since LG 16 etc referred to known exceptions to the exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.For them, as Pope Benedict confirmed in March 2016, EENS was no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century. There was a development with Vatican Council II.LG 16 is a break with EENS.It is the same for you too,I suppose.

-Lionel Andrades

No comments: