AUGUST 10, 2014
Dialogue with the MHFM continued after a pause-2
I affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus as you do. I affirm Vatican Council II without the false premise. I affirm implicit for us baptism of desire and I am not a sedevacantist. Things couldnt be better.
I have received an e-mail from the MHFM continuing our dialogue.Here it is.
MHFM:
Wrong. That's modernism. You hold that dogmas are preceptive norms for acting, but not norms for believing. That's your error (and heresy, actually).
Lionel:
I hold dogmas are norms for believing and acting. Like you, I affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. There are no exceptions for me dejure or defacto, in theory or practise.
Unlike you, I affirm implicit for us baptism of desire. I accept it in faith, in theory. In fact (de facto, known to us) there are no cases.There are no defato cases of the baptism of desire.This is the reality of the baptism of desire. You instead assume there is explicit for us baptism of desire.It is visible in the flesh. Since they are exceptions to EENS for you. You imply that these cases visible cases of the baptism of desire, people now saved in Heaven, are people dead who are now physically visible to you on earth.Then you reject the baptism of desire.
So we both affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus but you do not affirm implicit for us baptism of desire.
I accept Vatican Council II without the premise of the baptism of desire cases now in Heaven being visible. So there is no false premise for me of the baptism of desire cases being visible exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is the MHFM premise and conclusion.It is irrational.
You reject Vatican Council II assuming there are explicit, visible exceptions mentioned in the Council(LG 8 etc).
I accept implicit for us baptism of desire.You reject the baptism of desire, since it is explicit for you.
I accept the popes. You are a sedevacantist.
You are irrational.Since we cannot see the deceased who are allegedly saved with the baptism of desire. Since they are invisible for us they cannot be relevant or exceptions to EENS.
You are also heretical according to your own standards.You are in schism with the past popes on the Nicene Creed. You interpret Vatican Council II as a rupture with EENS and the past popes on EENS.
You have still not addressed the issue of the non physical baptism of desire which I affirm. Perhaps you do not understand what I am saying.So we can make allowances for this.
I have cited an American apologist and Catholic priests in Rome supporting me and you overlook what I have said.You still talk in terms of theology when I am referring to physical cases on earth.
MHFM:
Let us explain it for you: when the Church proclaims that all who die as pagans, etc. go to Hell, that's not only what we preach, it's also what we must believe. It is also what holds true in God's sight. Got it.
Lionel:
Numerous times on my blog and in correspondence with you I have said this .I agree with you here. I affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS like the missionaries and Magisterium of the past.
MHFM:
That means that it would be heretical to assert, as you do, that God could perhaps invisibly make exceptions that are not known to us or mentioned in the dogma.
Lionel:
I am glad you have mentioned this point.
I believe that all who go to Heaven are Catholics. They are there with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water and without mortal sin on their soul. I have mentioned this on my blog.I think we agree here.
If a soul goes to Heaven with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water I believe God will send that person back to earth to be baptised with water. This has been the experience of saints including St.Francis of Xavier. I have mentioned this on my blog.
So there are no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Theoretically,de jure there are no exceptions for me .
Secondly, de facto we do not know of any case in 2014 saved without Catholic Faith and the baptism of water. So there are no defacto exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.In reality there cannot be practical exceptions to EENS for any of us.
So in theory, hypothethically and in fact, in the present times there are no exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
So all salvation mentioned in Vatican Council II (imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3), elements of sanctification and truth (LG 8) etc are not implicit or explicit exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is what I believe.
You do not make the distinction between implicit and explicit- for- us salvation. You assume that all salvation mentioned in Vatican Council II is explicit- for- us and so contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So you reject Vatican Council II.
MHFM:
Dogmas are truths fallen from Heaven. They are are perfect reflection of the reality in God's sight.
Lionel:
Correct.I agree.
MHFM:
Here's where you heresy is condemned.
Pope Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #22:
“The dogmas which the Church professes as revealed are not truths fallen from heaven, but they are a kind of interpretation of religious facts, which the human mind by a laborious effort prepared for itself.”- Condemned[xix]
Pope Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #54:
“The dogmas, the sacraments, the hierarchy, as far as pertains both to the notion and to the reality, are nothing but interpretations and the evolution of Christian intelligence, which have increased and perfected the little germ latent in the Gospel.”- Condemned[xx]
Lionel:
Non applicable to me.I affirm the dogma EENS with Feeneyism and not Cushingism. I do not postulate that invisible for us baptism of desire etc is a visible exception to the dogma EENS.
MHFM:
Dogmas of the faith, like Outside the Church There is No Salvation, are truths fallen from heaven.
This refutes all of your statements about 'objective, subjective', etc. We hope you see the heresy in which you have fallen and come out of it, but you are very dishonest. These points address and refute the argument you constantly make on this issue: that there are exceptions known to God, on baptism, salvation, etc.,
Lionel:
The baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance are only possibilities.So they cannot be exceptions to EENS Exceptions must exist in real life. Possibilities are dejure. Possibilities are theoretical. Exceptions are de facto, known cases.
If there was a case of the baptism of desire known to God it would not be an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Since for us it would still be an unknown case. It would be invisible on earth. It would not be an exception de jure or de facto.
1) God would send this person a preacher or someone to have him baptised with water ( St.Thomas Aquinas, St.Francis Xavier etc) and 2) defacto this case would not be known to us on earth.So it is irrelevan to EENS.It would not be an exception to all needing to enter the Church with the baptism of water for salvation.
Even if someone believes that that there is someone there in Heaven without the baptism of water, it still would not be a visible, known exception to the dogma EENS on earth.So baptism of desire and baptism of blood ,with or without the baptism of water , there cannot be an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, since these cases are known only to God in Heaven .
MHFM
that are not mentioned in the dogmatic proclamations - HERESY. You teach modernism, and you do it all the time.
Lionel:
I affirm Vatican Council II ( without the premise). You deny it. Is this heresy?
I affirm implicit for us baptism of desire. You deny it. Is this heresy?
I accept the pope. You are a sedevacantist. Is this heresy?
-Lionel Andrades
August 9, 2014
Dialogue with the MHFM continued after a pause -1
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment