Repost : I can hold the traditional interpretation of the dogma along with invisible for us and visible for God only, baptism of desire

 JUNE 17, 2014

I can hold the traditional interpretation of the dogma along with invisible for us and visible for God only, baptism of desire

Athanasius says:

We find this same theme repeated during the early persecutions when Catechumens, not yet baptised but desirous of baptism, were saved by their desire and the sacrifice of their lives for Christ.
Lionel:
Please note that I keep repeating that the baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, for me. I do not have a problem with the baptism of desire. I accept the baptism of desire.
I accept an implicit for us baptism of desire and reject an explicit for us baptism of desire in 2014.
_______________________

 

Athanasius says:

It is patently obvious then that a strict reading of the dogma, such as you and other followers of Fr. Feeney embrace, has neither historical nor theological support.

Lionel:
A ‘strict reading of the dogma’, for me, is compatible, with the baptism of desire ( implicit).For me there is no contradiction. So I accept the baptism of desire.
I can hold the traditional interpretation of the dogma along with invisible for us and visible for God only, baptism of desire. This would not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction.
However if the baptism of desire was explicit, then there would be a contradiction and it would not be the teaching of the Church (before 1940).
The Church accepts a baptism of desire.Before 1940 it was always considered implicit for us. It was a possibility but irrelevant to the dogma. After 1940 'the magisterium' interpreted it, it seems, as visible for us and so an exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma.

-Lionel Andrades