BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS A BINDING DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH PER TRENT IVE COVERED THAT BEFORE AND NOT INTERESTED IN ANY OTHER OPINIONS:)
Lionel:
TradcatKnight has removed my response to this comment. I suspected that he would do so. So I made a copy and posted it here. 1.
Eric Gajiewski( TradcatKnight) , sedevacantist, interprets Vatican Council II by assuming Lumen Gentium 16 refers to known people saved outside the Church.So for him the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century.
He writes that the baptism of desire 'is a binding doctrine' of the Church according to the Council of Trent.So what? We do not have to reject it.It refers to invisible people Rome made a mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
If a Catholic (call him A) assumes that the baptism of desire refers to known people saved outside the Church it still is an opinion.There is no known case in, for example, 2017.There is no concrete as such for it to be relevant or an exception to the dogma EENS.
If a Catholic (call him B) assumes that the baptism of desire refers to an unknown person, saved outside the Church and known only to God, it still is an opinion. There is no such case known in 2017 or in the past.It is not a concrete case.There is no objectively visible person saved as such.
If a Catholic (call him C) assumes that the baptism of desire refers to someone saved with the desire for the baptism of water,but dies before he receives it on earth,but who still receives the baptism of water in a manner known only to God, it still is an opinion.It is a hypothetical case. It still is not a concrete case. So it is not relevant or an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
For Eric Gajiewski the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to exceptions to the dogma EENS when they are only hypothetical cases.This is irrational.Indirectly he is saying that these are references to known people saved outside the Church. Since only if they are personally known people saved outside the Church could they be exceptions.
I do not know of any such person in 2017.
So he reinterprets the Council of Trent. When the Council of Trent mentions such a case it obviously is a hypothetical case. There could be no person known as such in a specific case at that time.
Similarly when the the Catechisms of the past mention the baptism of desire it is a reference to a hypothetical case.This is something obvious. But not so for Eric.
For him also in Vatican Council II, LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc refer to exceptions to the dogma EENS when they are only hypothetical cases. Again this is irrational.So he criticizes Vatican Council II when the fault lies with his irrational premise.
For me BOD, BOB and I.I are not exceptions to EENS. Since they are invisible cases for me. My premise is different from that of Eric.
For me LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc are not exceptions to EENS too. My premise is different from that of Eric and so my conclusion is different.For me Vatican Council II is in harmony with Tradition for Eric it is a rupture.
So Vatican Council II ( without the irrational premise of Eric) is not an exception to the dogma EENS( without the premise).
Vatican Council II (premise-free) is not a rupture with the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. Vatican Council II (premise-free) supports only an ecumenism of return.Since there is no known salvation outside the Church the new ecumenism is rejected.
Since Vatican Council II ( premise-free) is not a rupture with the past exclusivist ecclesiology, there being no known salvation outside the Church, non- Christians in other religions need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation.
Since outside the Church there is no salvation and Vatican Council II does not contradict the traditional ecclesiology of the Church, the priority for the salvation of souls in general is the non separation of Church and State and the proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation.It is important that every one is a Catholic since there are only Catholics in Heaven.Catholics are the new people of God(NA 2).
It also means that Catholic spouses in inter-faith marriages are living in adultery.The non Catholic spouse is outside the Church and is on the way to Hell. The marriage to a Protestant, Jew etc is not a Sacrament even if a liberal non believing bishop grants a dispensation.-Lionel Andrades
1.
I accept the baptism of desire. I also accept extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the missionaries of the 16th century.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/10/i-accept-baptism-of-desire-i-also.html
________________________________________________
TradCat Knight does not affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) quoted below.Since for him invisible cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are visible exceptions to the dogma EENS.He uses the irrational premise to interpret EENS.
“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)
“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)
“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)
“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)
“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)
http://catholicism.org/category/outside-the-church-there-is-no-salvation
________________________________
He would assume hypothetical references in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 are non hypothetical and are examples of objective cases, known people, saved outside the Church.So these documents become a rupture with Tradition when they really are not.If he did not use the false premise they would not be a rupture with traditional EENS and the Syllabus of Errors.
EXAMPLES OF THE HYPOTHETICAL REFERENCES IN THE CATECHISM FOR HIM WHICH ARE NOT HYPOTHETICAL.
1. 'God is not limited to the Sacraments'(CCC 1257)
'2.all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body'(CC(CCC 846).
3. Those 'justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians'(CCC 818).
4. They are 'joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."(CCC 838).
5. 'the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims'(CCC 841).
1. 'God is not limited to the Sacraments'(CCC 1257)
'2.all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body'(CC(CCC 846).
3. Those 'justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians'(CCC 818).
4. They are 'joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."(CCC 838).
5. 'the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims'(CCC 841).
__________________________________
EXAMPLES OF HYPOTHETICAL REFERENCES IN VATICAN COUNCIL II WHICH FOR HIM ARE NOT HYPOTHETICAL.
1. 'elements of sanctification and truth'in other religions(LG 8),
2..'good and holy' things in other religions(NA 2),
3..'a ray of that Truth which enlightens' all men(NA 2),
4.'imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3),
5.' people of good will in other religions'(GS 22),
6.' seeds of the Word'(AG 11),
7.'invincible ignorance'(LG 16),
8.'a good conscience'(LG 16) etc.
2..'good and holy' things in other religions(NA 2),
3..'a ray of that Truth which enlightens' all men(NA 2),
4.'imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3),
5.' people of good will in other religions'(GS 22),
6.' seeds of the Word'(AG 11),
7.'invincible ignorance'(LG 16),
8.'a good conscience'(LG 16) etc.
______________________________________
HYPOTHETICAL REFERENCES IN THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949 TO THE ARCHBISHOP OF BOSTON WHICH FOR HIM ARE NOT HYPOTHETICAL.
1.Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.(we do not know who this person is in particular so it is a hypothetical case.)
2.In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing.(we do not know any one in particular as such so this is a hypothetical case.)
3.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.( if there is any such person he or she would only be known to God. So this passage is irrelevant to the dogma EENS. It cannot be an exception.Since it is a reference to an invisible person for us.)
4.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, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.(it is a reference to an unknown catechumen)
5.For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.( and we do not know any in particular.So this is a theoretical and hypothetical reference) -Lionel Andrades
___________________________________
TERMS EXPLAINED
Feeneyism: It is the old theology and philosophical reasoning which says there are no known exceptions past or present, to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).There are no explicit cases to contradict the traditional interpretation of EENS.It affirms traditional EENS like the missionaries and magisterium of the 16th century.
Cushingism: It is the new theology and philosophical reasoning, which assumes there are known exceptions, past and present, to the dogma EENS.There are exceptions to all needing to be incorporated into the Church for salvation.It wronly assumes that the baptism of desire etc are not hypothetical but objectively known.In principle hypothetical cases are objective in the present times.So it uses the false premise to reject the traditional interpretation of EENS.
Irrational premise: It is assuming hypothetical cases are not hypothetical but instead are objective cases in the present times.It assumes invisible and unknown people are visible and unknown in our reality.
Baptism of Desire ( premise-free): It refers to the hypothetical case of an unknown catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved. Since this is an invisible case in our reality it, the baptism of desire, is not relevant to the dogma EENS.
Baptism of Desire (with the false premise): It refers to the known case of a catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved.A known person is assumed to be known.
Invincible Ignorance ( premise-free): This refers to the hypothetical case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.Since it is a hypothetical case it is not an exception to the dogma EENS.The false premise was not used.
Invincible Ignorance (with the false premise): This refers to the explicit case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.Since it is an exception to the dogma EENS it is assumed to be objectively known in particular cases.This reasoning is irrational.
Council of Florence: One of the three Councils which defined the dogma EENS.It did not mention any exception.It did not mention the baptism of desire. It was premise-free.
Liberal theologians: They re-interpreted the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, as objective cases, known in the present times.They used the false premise.
Vatican Council II (with the premise): It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II without the false premise.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer not to hypothetical but known cases in the present times. So Vatican Council II emerges as a break with the dogma EENS.
Vatican Council II ( premise-free):It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II without the false premise.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to hypothetical cases, which are unknown personally in the present times.So Vatican Council II is not a break with EENS, the Syllabus of Errors, ecumenism of return, the Nicene Creed ( premise-free),the teaching on the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation and the non separation of Church and State( since all need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell).
Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston:(with the false premise) It assumed hypothetical cases were defacto known in the present times. So it presented the baptism of desire etc as an explicit exception, to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS.It censured Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.Since they did not assume that the baptism of desire referred to a visible instead of invisible case.The Letter made the baptism of desire etc relevant to EENs.From the second part of this Letter has emerged the New Theology.It used the false premise.
Letter of the Holy Office 1949 ( premise-free). It means interpreting the first part of the the Letter without the false premise.Only the first part.It supports Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.The traditional interpretatiion of the dogma EENS does not mention any exceptions.However the second part of the Letter contradicts the first part since it uses the false premise.
Letter of the Holy Office ( with the false premise).The second part of the Letter rejects the traditional interpretation of EENS. Since it considers the baptism of desire ( with the premise) and being saved in invincible ignorance ( with the premise) as being exceptions to EENS (premise-free). In other words they are mistaken for being visible and known cases when they really are invisible for us.It wrongly assumes hypothetical cases are objectively visible and so they are exceptions to the first part of the Letter.
Baltimore Catechism: It assumed that the desire for the baptism of an unknown catechumen, who dies before receiving it and was saved, was a baptism like the baptism of water. So it was placed in the Baptism Section of the catechism. In other words it was wrongly assumed that the baptism of desire is visible and repeatable like the baptism of water or that we can administer it like the baptism of water.The Baltimore Catechism is accepted with the confusion.It can be interpreted premise-free.
Catechism of Pope X: It followed the Baltimore Catechism and placed the baptism of desire in the Baptism Section.It can be interpreted as being premise -free. The references to invincible ignorance etc have to be interpreted without the false premise. So it does not contradict the dogma EENS( premise-free).
Nicene Creed ( with the premise): It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' and means there are more than three known baptisms when the false premise is used in the interpretation. They are water, blood, desire, seeds of the Word etc.This is an irrational but common understanding.
Nicene Creed ( premise-free): It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and means there is one known baptism the baptism of water.
New Theology: : (with the premise) It refers to the new theology in the Catholic Church based on hypothetical cases being objective in the present times.So it eliminates the dogma EENS.With the dogma EENS made obsolete the ecclesiology of the Church changes. There is a new ecclesiology which is a break with Tradition.It is of course based on the false premise.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( with the false premise).It refers to the dogma but with exceptions.All do not need to defacto convert into the Church in the present times, since there are exceptions.The baptism of desire( with the premise), baptism of blood( with the premise) and being saved in invincible ignorance( with the premise) are exceptions to dogma as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( premise-free): It refers to the dogma as it was interpreted over the centuries.There are no known exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church, with faith and baptism, to avoid Hell.Invisible for us baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are not visible exceptions to all needing to be incorporated into the Catholic Church for salvation.
Catechism of the Catholic Church ( with the premise): CCC 1257 contradicts the Principle of Non Contraduction. Also CCC 848 is based on the new theology and so is a rupture with the dogma EENS( premise-free). So this is an interpretation of the Catechism with the false premise.
Catechism of the Catholic Church ( premise-free): CCC 1257 does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction since there are no known exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. There are no known cases in the present times of God not being not limited to the Sacraments(CCC1257).When CCC 846 states all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church,CCC 846 does not contradict the dogmatic teaching on all needing to formally enter the Church.It is a reference to a hypothetical case and not somebody known. CCC 846 does not contradict Ad Gentes 7 which states all need faith and baptism for salvation.
Conclusion:
He interprets Church documents with Cushingism instead ofFeeneyism.
He uses the Irrational Premise.
He chooses the Baptism of Desire (with the false premise) and Invincible Ignorance (with the false premise).
He irrationally also chooses Vatican Council II (with the premise).
It is the same with the Letter of the Holy Office ( with the false premise) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church ( with the premise).
In first class heresy according to the hierarchy of truths of Pope John Paul II he chooses the Nicene Creed ( with the premise).
It has always been Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( with the false premise)and not according to the missionaries in the 16th century, premise-free.
With the irrational premise he interprets the Baltimore Catechism and the Catechism of Pope Pius X as a rupture with Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( premise-free).
The New Theology of Ecclesia Dei and the CDF is based on the irrational premise.
He can choose extra ecclesiam nulla salus premise-free but will not do so. He can choose to interpret Vatican Council II( premise-free) which will not be a rupture with EENS( premise-free) but he will not do so.
The Nicene Creed with the premise is heresy and is used in the Profession of Faith for religious when they accept a new responsibility.-Lionel Andrades
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
DECEMBER 17, 2016
When I meet a non Catholic on the streets I know he is on the way to Hell since the Catholic Church teaches this : this would be news for many Catholics
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/12/when-i-meet-non-catholic-on-street-i.html
DECEMBER 18, 2016
When I meet a non Catholic on the streets I know he is on the way to Hell since he could not be in the subsist it or know or did not know about Jesus and the Church category
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/12/when-i-meet-non-catholic-on-streets-i.html
_________________________________________________________________
Posts
