He will interpret the baptism of desire and blood as being known people in our reality and then will confidently infer that they are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Then he will ask me why do I differentiate between known and unknown cases and he will tell me that he refuses to do the same.
If I say that I am responding to him assuming the baptism of desire and blood refer to known people he will not understand.Instead he will complain about my not being able to study at Oxford and Cambridge and so the real issue for him is my English.
Now in his latest piece (after he told me to go somewhere else in a previous one) he tells us the importance of the Great Commission and then suggests that the baptism of desire is a relevant exception. So his message is 'Go out into the whole world and make disciples, except for those saved or going to be saved with the baptism of desire and blood, which would only be known to God, if it happened.'
I told him that the baptism of desire is not rejected by me since it is hypothetical and not known to us human beings.So I do not have to choose between the baptism of desire and the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).I can affirm both.
He cannot affirm both since the baptism of desire is not only known to God for him.So it is either physically visible baptism of desire which is an exception to Feeneyite EENS or it is Feeneyite EENS without the baptism of desire.
And if you do not accept this interpretation of physically visible cases of the baptism of desire, his message is ' get lost'.
The error that is opposed to this level of catholic truth is called error in doctrina catholica (error in Catholic doctrine).",he writes.
But I am not opposing the baptism of desire I had to keep repeating in his com box, all in vain.With invisible for us baptism of desire Catholic truth on EENS is not opposed.
If a Catholic were to deny either of these they would clearly be going against truths that the Church proposes must be held by the faithful as being taught by the Church. To deny them one would be guilty of either "error in Catholic doctrine" or "error in theology." All levels of the Church's magisterial teaching can be found at this link. If you are unfamiliar with them the article is worth reading.
Why would I have to deny the baptism of desire when there are no cases in our reality past and present. No one could have seen a baptism of desire case in Heaven. It can only be known to God.So it can only be accepted as a possibility. So it is not a problem for me.
The Council of Trent Session Six concerning Justification, in chapter four also conveys this reality by stating that justification, "cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof.." referring to Baptism.
Agreed. Every one needs the baptism of water for salvation (laver of regeneration) and if any one is saved with 'the desire thereof' it would be known only to God. The Council of Trent does not state that the desire therof refers to known people saved. It was the liberal theologians who made this mistake.There are no known cases of someone saved with 'the desiretherof'.No one saw St.Emerentiana or St. Victor in Heaven with only 'the desiretherof' or with only the baptism of blood and without the baptism of water.
There are some Catholics who are claiming that this means everyone from all religions can be saved by following their false religion. They are wrong, since one has to profess the Catholic faith at least implicitly in order for these two possibilities to be effected. They also must be accompanied by perfect charity. There are other Catholics who say that we should not accept Baptism of Blood or Desire as valid possible means since they can mislead people into not following the divine commission. These Catholics say that the modern liberal theologians introduced these novelties. They are also wrong since the teaching is found in all traditional theological treatises as well as the Church Fathers, several Church documents and as I stated before, fall into the category of teaching that is to be held with religious assent of intellect and will. It also must be stated that neither of these possibilities do not teach anything contrary to the Church's teaching of Ecclesiam nulla salus which means: "outside the Church there is no salvation".
There are some Catholics who are claiming that this means everyone from all religions can be saved by following their false religion. They are wrong, since one has to profess the Catholic faith at least implicitly in order for these two possibilities to be effected.
Lionel: If there is salvation outside the Church since the baptism of desire etc are exceptions to Feeneyite EENS then it is possible that someone can be saved in a false religion and if it is possible for one person, then it is possible, may be even for many as Bishop Robert Barron wrongly reasons.For Bishop Barron, Rahner and Ratzinger there was known salvation outside the Church. So their liberalism is built upon this error of known cases of the baptism of desire, people saved without the baptism of water in the Church.
______________________________
They also must be accompanied by perfect charity. There are other Catholics who say that we should not accept Baptism of Blood or Desire as valid possible means since they can mislead people into not following the divine commission. These Catholics say that the modern liberal theologians introduced these novelties.
Lionel: The novelty of the liberal theologians was that they assumed possibilities were known cases in the present times and then they inferred that these possibilities were known examples of salvation outside the Church. So they become exceptions to Feeneyite EENS. We can see this in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
____________________________
They are also wrong since the teaching is found in all traditional theological treatises as well as the Church Fathers, several Church documents and as I stated before, fall into the category of teaching that is to be held with religious assent of intellect and will.
Lionel: It is not denied that the teaching is found in Tradition.It is denied that in traditional theological treatises as well as the Church Fathers, the baptism of desire was referred to as someone known personally.It is denied that the teaching refers to a known non-Catholic, saved outside the Church, instead of just being a hypothetical possibility.The Church Fathers did not specifically say that the baptism of desire was an explicit exception to EENS.It is common sense that the baptism of desire cannot be known at the practical level.The case of the catechumen who sought the baptism of water and died before he receiving it and was saved with the baptism of desire is always an unknown case for us humans.
When someone agrees that we humans cannot know of a baptism of desire case, and that in our reality the baptism of desire cannot be a practical exception to Feeneyite EENS then why would he keep sending me baptism of desire references?
____________________________
It also must be stated that neither of these possibilities do not teach anything contrary to the Church's teaching of Ecclesiam nulla salus which means: "outside the Church there is no salvation".
Lionel:So hopefully he will no more cite St. Emerentiana or the Holy Innocents as an exception to EENS.
_____________________________
The teaching concerning Baptism by Blood and Desire are no exceptions.
Lionel: However later Matthew will refer to 'the real possibility of Baptism by Blood and by Desire and their place in the teaching of the Church' and consider it relevant or an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
___________________
The Summa of St. Thomas Aquinas which he has quoted refers to theoretical cases for me. For the liberal theologians and Matthew Bellisario they are concrete and known people in the present times.So he has mentioned them with reference to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Note - they have to be known people in the present times. Since people in the past or future cannot be exceptions to Feeneyite EENS in the present. Someone has to exist to be an exception and he has to exist in the present times.
For someone to be an exception to EENS in 2017 he must exist in 2017. A person five centuries back cannot be an exception to EENS in the present times.
For Matthew, however the baptism of desire etc are concrete and known people in the present times and so they become exceptions to Feeneyite EENS. Then when I affirm Feeneyite EENS he thinks I am rejecting the baptism of desire.
Note - they have to be known people in the present times. Since people in the past or future cannot be exceptions to Feeneyite EENS in the present. Someone has to exist to be an exception and he has to exist in the present times.
For someone to be an exception to EENS in 2017 he must exist in 2017. A person five centuries back cannot be an exception to EENS in the present times.
For Matthew, however the baptism of desire etc are concrete and known people in the present times and so they become exceptions to Feeneyite EENS. Then when I affirm Feeneyite EENS he thinks I am rejecting the baptism of desire.
If he had understood that the baptism of desire always referred to theoretical cases and it was practical only for God, he would not continue to post references to the baptism of desire.It does not have to be either the baptism of desire or extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
-Lionel Andrades
http://catholicchampion.blogspot.it/2017/12/the-necessity-of-baptism-what-about.html
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment