Wednesday, April 4, 2018

Repost : Possibilities cannot be defacto exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation in the present times.

DECEMBER 3, 2014

Possibilities cannot be defacto exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation in the present times.

These are follow up comments on Steve Speray's blog:
http://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2014/11/27/the-sedevacantist-saint-vincent-ferrer/#comment-4896

From Pope Pius XII to Pope Francis they all have been using an irrational premise in the interpretation of magisterial texts.
For instance the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257 says God is not limited to the Sacraments and also the Church knows of no means to eternal beatifude other than the baptism of water. This is a contradiction.It contradicts the Principle of Non Contradiction.

SPERAY REPLIES: You left out “ASSURES” which is the key word, but it doesn’t contradict anything. The fact that you say such foolishness means you don’t know the Catholic Faith. You’ve created a religion in your head thinking it’s Catholic. IT’S NOT. It’s Lionelism.

Lionel:
Here it says all need the baptism of water  for salvation in the present times.
1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation...
Then it says that for some, in the present times, baptism is not necessary for salvation i.e those who are in ignorance. (Note :the baptism of water can only be given in the present times. So we are not referring to a hypothetical case here)
 for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. 
Then once again it says that the baptism of water is defacto necessary. This would mean every one in 2014 needs the baptism of water.
The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude
Then it refers to some who do not need the baptism of water defacto. They are those who do not have the means of being baptised. In other words we defacto know where the necessity of means and precept can be applied. This is not just the prerogative of Jesus to judge. Seemingly even we can judge.
that  all who can be baptized 
Then comes the cream of the double speak and assuming hypothethical cases are defacto visible to us in the present times. 
 God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.
God has bound salvation to the sacrament of baptism in the present times but every one does not need  the Sacrament of baptism in the present times.
Apparently Cardinal Ratzinger personally knew of a defacto exception, a person who would be going to Heaven without the baptism of water.This line is contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction.
Here is the complete text of CCC 1257.
1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.
Lionel:
How can you say that de facto God is not limited to the Sacraments and also say God is limited to the Sacraments for salvation?
SPERAY: NO ONE SAID GOD WAS LIMITED TO THE SACRAMENTS FOR SALVATION. You’ve assumed it.
Lionel:
Please see the text (comment) above.I have quoted the text of CCC 1257 for you.
Lionel:
This error was not corrected by Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI. Pope Francis has also accepted it as have all the cardinals and bishops.
SPERAY REPLIES: They aren’t Catholic so your point is moot. However, they don’t have to correct something that’s only erroneous in your head.
Lionel:
They are Catholic and you are still unaware of the error since you use the same irrational premise. You too like the other sedevacantists are assume there are visible -in- Heaven exceptions to Tradition. So you are unable to correct the popes on this point, while you criticize them otherwise.
Lionel:
Pope Pius XII and all the popes who have followed him have accepted that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are visible to us in the present times.
SPERAY REPLIES: Another problem in your head. NO ONE SAID BOD is visible. Salvation is not visible in any respect unless it was made known in a special way by God. Which saint in heaven is visible to us?????? Answer that question.
Lionel:
If the baptism of desire is not visible for you then how can it be an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? If being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) is not defacto visible for you in 2014 then how can these cases be an exception or relevant to all needing the baptism of water for salvation in the present times ? Since they are exceptions for you, people in Heaven are visible to you. They are not exceptions for me.So it does not apply to me.
Steve:
 Which saint in heaven is visible to us?????? Answer that question.
Lionel:
For me there is nothing in Vatican Council II or the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which contradicts the dogma. So they do not have to be visible to me. Can you say the same ? Vatican Council II does not contradict Tradition? The Baptism of desire mentioned in the Letter of the Holy Office is not an exception to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney?
Lionel:
They would have to be visible and known to us to be explicit exceptions to the traditional interpretation of Fr. Leonard Feeney.

SPERAY REPLIES: Feeney’s error was that he believed in Baptism of Desire, but such a justified person wouldn’t go to heaven or hell.

Lionel:
So what if Fr.Leonard  Feeney  believed in a baptism of desire ? What has the baptism of desire to do with the dogma ? If it results in salvation or justification it would be known only to God, in a particular case. We do not know of any such particular case to judge if it results in justification or does not.We do not know the name of any such person.
Steve:
 He said he doesn’t know where such a person would go.
Lionel:
And you know of some such case ? And where this person will go ?
Steve:
 In other words, Feeney believe that person could be justified WITHOUT baptism, but he still wouldn’t go to heaven. YOU DON’T THE TRUTH ABOUT FEENEY! I’ve read everything he taught.
Lionel:
You know someone in your diocese  who will go to Heaven without the baptism of water but with the baptism of desire?
Steve:
We have it here once. Defacto every one needs to enter the Church ( extra ecclesiam nulla salus) but some do not have to enter the Church for salvation?
SPERAY REPLIES: WRONG! Everyone needs to enter the Church but not formally. 
Lionel:
Every one needs to be a member of the Catholic  Church, according to the dogma.
Every one needs 'faith and baptism' according to Vatican Council II (AG 7).
You can only be a member of the Church formally. You can choose to be a member of the Catholic Church with 'faith and baptism'
You cannot choose to become a member of the Church with the baptism of desire or blood. Since these are graces given and known only to God.
Do you know of any exceptions? This year or the last few years ?
Steve:
You’ve assumed formally, but no pope or council ever taught it. Pope St. Pius X taught that men can be saved without baptism. So did Pope ST. Pius V, and every pope since Trent.

Lionel:

Neither does Mystici Corporis of Pope Pius XII  or the Council of Trent say that we know of any one who can be saved without the baptism of water or that the baptism of desire will not be followed by the baptism of water.The text does not say it. You have to assume that it is refers to a visible- for- us baptism of desire or, a baptism of desire which excludes the baptism of water.
Remember, I asked you to quote me any such text and you could not.You could not cite any pope, saint or Church document before 1949.Since there is no precedent.
______________________________
Lionel:
The popes have been interpreting magisterial documents with this inference of being able to see in heaven and on earth people who are saved with the baptism of desire etc.They can see the dead ?! It is with this irrationality that theology produces heretical results. The liberals accept the result and the traditionalists and sedevacantists reject it.

SPERAY REPLIES: No pope has ever implied even by inference of being able to see the dead. You personal made-up theology is a lie.
Lionel:
When a pope, traditionalist or sedevacantist says there are defacto exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus it is being inferred that these exceptions are visible to us ( though dead) and so they are exceptions. They are exceptions since they are known.If they were not within our reality they would not be exceptions.
Lionel:
Sedevancantism is unfortunate. They use the same irrational premise which changes doctrine and theology. It is the same error being made by the popes.Sedevacantists have only have to avoid the inference in the interpretation of magisterial documents, example Vatican Council II, and the result is traditional.
SPERAY REPLIES: This statement is so silly, it’s not worth responding to.
Lionel:
Some time back I listed 10 questions 1 regarding this issue. You  ignored those questions. Possibly you did  not understand the concept.
If  you understood the concept and could answer those questions you would realize that there is no rational basis for sedevacantism with respect to Vatican Council II . Since without the irrational inference, which you now use, the Council is in agreement with the Syllabus of Errors and the rest of Tradition.There is nothing to contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in Vatican Council II.So the traditional ecclesiology and teaching on ecumenism and other religions would not have changed.
Lionel:
No one has yet explained this to Pope Francis. This irrationality has been the hallmark of the Jesuits since the time they expelled Fr.Leonard Feeney from their community.
SPERAY REPLIES: You don’t know the Catholic Faith, and you don’t know Feeney. You’ve simply created a religion that exist only in your head. Do us all a favor and stop spreading Lionelism in comment sections. Keep it on your own blog.
Lionel:
You at least are in no postion to explain it the pope. You first have to decide if  the baptism of desire and all references to salvation can be considered visible or invisible for us. If you consider these cases as being exceptions to Tradition then you are implying (whether you know it or not) that they are visible for you. You have decided.
So who is going to point this error to the popes ? Not you.Like the other sedevacantists you will reject Vatican Council II, which  you look at  superficially.You assume possibilities (LG 16,LG 8,UR 3,NA 2 etc) are  exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Tradition, when they are not. Since possibilities cannot be defacto exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation in the present times.
-Lionel Andrades
Feast of St.Francis Xavier.

1.
The Social Reign of Jesus Christ has been made obsolete with alleged salvation outside the Catholic Church known to us 
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/the-social-reign-of-jesus-christ-has.html



From Pope Pius XII to Pope Francis they all have been using an irrational premise in the interpretation of magisterial texts
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/12/from-pope-pius-xii-to-pope-francis-they.html

Repost : The baptism of desire is not a problem for me. As long as you do not imply that it refers to known and visible cases, who are explicit exceptions, to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus

DECEMBER 12, 2014

The baptism of desire is not a problem for me. As long as you do not imply that it refers to known and visible cases, who are explicit exceptions, to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus

 
What you call meaningless to you is the teaching of the Church.
Lionel:
For something/someone  to be an exception it/he must exist and  must be different. If there is an orange in a box of apples then that orange is an exception.It exists there in that box so it is an exception.
If any pope, cardinal or bishop says that the baptism of desire or being saved in invincible ignorance ( without the baptism of water) exists in our reality then it is to be rejected.Since in general we cannot with our physical eyes see any one in Heaven. They would have to exist physically in our reality. It is then that we can say, "Hey look at this guy. He lives down the road. He was saved with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water. He is an exception to the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church on the neccessity of faith and the baptism of water for all".
Or you would say,"Meet my aunt. She is such a wonderful person.God told her she would be saved in invincible ignorance and so she does not have to convert into the Catholic Church.She is an exception to the Feeneyite concept of extra ecclesiam nulla salus".
So this was the error made by 'the Church' in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 . They assumed that we could physically see a person on earth who would be saved without the baptism of water and so Fr.Leonard Feeney was wrong.
This is Cushingism. Cushingism means assuming the dead who are now in Heaven are physically visible to us on earth; they exist in our reality.
______________________________
Judging the cases is not up to you, it's up to the Church.
Lionel:
If you say that there are explicit exceptions to the dogma then you have judged? Someone you know does not need the baptism of water to go to Heaven ?
__________________________________
Examples of known cases ARE THE SAINTS
Lionel:
The saints are not physically seen on earth. We believe St. Francis of Assisi is in Heaven but we cannot see him.
For there to be an exception to the dogma the case would have to be personally known or seen on earth.
_____________________________________
We have another interesting case here IF YOU BELIEVE THE SAINT WHO SAID SO.A True Story concerning Baptism of Desire and the Cure’ of Ars, St. John Vianney
Lionel:
The baptism of desire is not a problem for me. As long as you do not imply that it refers to known and visible cases, who are explicit exceptions, to the interpretation of the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeeny.
The baptism of desire ( invisible for us) is compatible with Fr.Leonard Feeney's 'rigorist interpretation 'of the dogma.
_____________________________________
JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW ANY CASE IN 2014 DOESN'T MEAN A THING.
Lionel:
It means there are no known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma according to the Church Councils, popes, saints and Fr.Leonard Feeeny.
_______________________________________________
FACTS ARE FACTS REGARDLESS WHETHER A CASE EVEN EXISTS.
Lionel:
It is a fact that a case of the baptism of desire, of someone saved without the baptism of water( or with the baptism of water) , does not exist in 2014 for us. We do not know anyone saved us such.
_____________________________________
You don't know any known cases who were saved with baptism of water either.
Lionel:
Yes and I am not saying that the baptism of desire ( with or without the baptism of water) is an exception to the dogma. The Letter of the Holy Office suggests it is.This is how Vatican Council II is accepted. LG 16 is supposed to be an exception to the dogma. The same false inference has led to the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257 saying God is not limited to the Sacraments. Defacto he is limited to the Sacraments according to the dogma, the Syllabus of Errors etc.
_______________________________________
Does that mean baptism doesn't save since you don't know any actual cases?
Lionel:
 It means that a person can be saved with the baptism of desire followed by the baptism of water and it would be known only to God. It is not an exception or relevant to the traditional teaching.In general God saves with the baptism of water. It is given to adults with Catholic Faith.
-Lionel Andrades
 

When the Magisterium says God is not limited to the Sacraments it is an objective error since the norm is the Sacrament of Baptism and you and I do not know of any exceptions http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/12/when-magisterium-says-god-is-not.html
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/12/the-baptism-of-desire-is-not-problem.html

Repost : If a pope uses the irrational premise and comes to an irrational conclusion it still is an objective error, even if he is the pope.

DECEMBER 22, 2014

If a pope uses the irrational premise and comes to an irrational conclusion it still is an objective error, even if he is the pope.

I have received an e-mail from an apologist.
 
You need to be more specific about what you are saying and also define your terms. What premise, what conclusion, what theology, what Tradition. Be very specific about what you are saying. Your point, if there is one, isnt' comprehensible.
Lionel:
Thank you for mentioning it.
what premise ?
The irrational premise is "The dead are visible to us on earth".
what conclusion ?
The conclusion is since the dead are visible to us on earth those who are saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance are explicit ( visible in the flesh) exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
what theology,
So the post -1949 theology says every one needs to enter the Catholic Church except for those in invincible ignorance or with the baptism of desire.
Defacto there are known exceptions to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston.
what Tradition.
Pre- 1949 Catholic Tradition, on salvation ( soteriology) says there is exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. The three dogmas on extra ecclesiam nulla salus ,defined by three Church Councils do not mention any exception. The text also does not mention the baptism of desire or being saved in invincible ignorance.I am referring to Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441.
Also Mystici Corporis and the Council of Trent mention implicit desire etc but do not state that these cases are known to us, to be exceptions to the dogma .Neither do they state that there are exceptions to the dogma.
Yet with the false premise and false conclusion this is how the Council of Trent, the Catechism of Pope Pius X etc are interpreted.
If a pope uses the irrational premise and comes to an irrational conclusion it still is an objective error, even if he is the pope. It is a fact of life that we cannot see persons in Heaven saved with the baptism of desire. We do not know any one this year saved without the batism of water. So so how can these cases be postulated as exceptions?
-Lionel Andrades

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/12/if-pope-uses-irrational-premise-and.html

Repost : Popes have assumed Pope Pius XII was correct.Since then theology has become irrational

DECEMBER 23, 2014

Popes have assumed Pope Pius XII was correct.Since then theology has become irrational

Musings of a Pertinacious Papist
_______________________________
 
Trady pooh:
... Why has this become such a hobby horse for you? Just seems odd.
Lionel:
Since it is clear to me that the Holy Office and the Archdiocese of Boston in 1949 made an objective error.Cases of the baptism of desire etc would have to be known and be visible to us to be exceptions to the interpretation of the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
The popes instead have assumed that Pope Pius XII. was correct.Since then theology has gone off the rails in the Catholic Church.It has become irrational.
Implict for us, invisible for us baptism of desire, a possibility known only to God is perfectly compatible with the 'rigorist interpretation' of the dogma. It does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction.If you aware that these cases are not visible in the flesh to be exceptions there is no contradiction.

_____________________

I'm curious what you would say about the Blessed Mother, since, as far as I know, she was never confirmed formally as a Catholic. 

Lionel
She was sinless and went to Heaven.
All the good persons who died before the coming of Jesus had to wait in Abraham's bosom for the coming of the Messiah. He then took they to Heaven.

_____________________

What about Elijah, who was reportedly taken into heaven, though was never baptized?

Lionel:
After the Resurrection he went to Heaven.
God has chosen that all people enter the Catholic Church founded by His Son Jesus Christ. This is the means he chose for salvation for all.Jesus is the Saviour. He saves from Hell. We can accept his Sacrifice and salvation by responding with Catholic Faith.It includes the baptism of water.

______________________

Or, for that matter, St. Joseph? Do you see him in heaven?

Lionel:
Yes I see him in Heaven with faith.
Assuming there are persons who have died this year without the baptism of water, these cases would not be relevant or an exception to the dogma.Since invisible, hypothetical cases are not defacto exceptions in the present times.So all still need the baptism of water for salvation in 2014.

___________________

What about the thief on the cross, of whom our Lord said that today he would be with Him in paradise? Was he a baptized member of the Church in good standing?

Lionel:
We do not know of any Good Thief this year or any one saved as such. Assuming there was one,he would not be an exception to the dogma.

____________________

Oh, Limbo? Even St. Joseph? The Blessed Mother? I think not.

What about catechumens who die before they are baptized and confirmed? 
Lionel:
They can be saved.
I do not deny this.
As long as you do not project these cases as an exception to the dogma. I would not object.

___________________

So you're denying that "invincible ignorance" or "baptism of desire" are possible, or just that anyone can know that they're actual? 

Lionel:
I accept them as a possibility. I deny that they are exceptions to the dogma.
-Lionel Andrades
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/12/popes-have-assumed-pope-pius-xii-was.html

Conference on Saturday will not criticize the March 1 and 30 statements of Cardinals Ladaria and Nicols and neither will they affirm the immutable truths on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church

Image result for Photo of Cardinal Caffarra
For me membership in the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation and if I was married and had children you could expect me to teach them this.Since it is important for the family to affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in harmony with Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

I would tell them that there is no known salvation outside the Church and that all who die outside the Catholic Church are on the way to Hell.
I would tell them this is Jesus' teaching which was  repeated by the Apostles, the Church Fathers, the Medieval Fathers and the popes and saints right up to Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Catholic teaching before and after Vatican Council II is that all non Catholics and non Christians are oriented to Hell without any known exception,unless they convert into the Church.So there are billions of non Catholics in Hell today.

It is important to be a Catholic and to follow the teachings of the Catholic Church for salvation ( to avoid Hell).
But this is not mentioned at conferences on the family.These are the truths of the faith which will not be proclaimed on Saturday at the Conference in Rome held by The Friends of Cardinal Cafarra. 
Image result for Photo of Cardinal Caffarra
Bishop Athanasius Schneider, one of three Kazakh bishops to issue a Profession of the immutable truths on sacramental marriage will speak on ‘The Apostolic See of Rome as the cathedra veritatis [seat of truth]1.
He is not expected to say that Catholic  children should be taught that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.So it is important to live the teachings of the Church.This is a family issue.It is important in catechesis and the teaching of religion for Catholics in Catholic schools.



It is not expected that Cardinal Raymond Burke  will say that families must know that Vatican Council II interpreted rationally, does not contradict the past ecclesiology of an ecumenism of return. Also the Council is not a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors  when the reasoning of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO) is avoided. In this way there is no confusion over Catholic doctrine.

There is no schism with the past popes and Vatican Council II does not have to be rejected.
Image result for Photo of Cardinal Caffarra
“Only a blind man can deny that there is great confusion in the Church” says the announcement. The  speakers at the Conference will interpret Vatican Council II as a rupture with the dogma EENS as do the liberals in the Church.So the  confusion on doctrine will continue.
How can parents teach the unchanging faiths of the Church when conference speakers, every year, repeat the same error even after being informed.
German Cardinal Walter Brandmüller will open the conference at 3:00 p.m. with a presentation on Blessed John Henry Newman’s 1859 essay ‘On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine', but the faithful are following a false doctrine on the necessity of the Church for salvation.Will Cardinal Brandmuller affirm, like me, a lay faithful, that Vatican Council II says all non Catholics are in Hell since they die without faith and baptism? No. Will he say like me that Vatican Council II indicates that most people on earth in 2018 are oriented  to Hell since they will choose to die outside the Catholic Church ? No he will not say this. He will support the new doctrines created with an irrational new theology which is affirmed by the present two liberal popes.
Instead Cardinals  Brandmuller and Burke and Bishop Schneider will probably encourage the families to believe, like Cardinal Vince Nicols said on March 30,2018, that the Church does not say that any particular person is in Hell. Or like Cardinal Luiz Ladaria s.j said on March 1,2018, that the Church no more teaches that it has the superiority and exclusiveness of salvation after Vatican Council II. Since Lumen Gentium 8 was an exception for him.The immutable truths on salvation will be changed and rejected by the speakers at the Conference on April 7.


So the Saturday evening meeting will  conclude with a declaration (profession of faith) which will not criticize the March 1 and March 30 statements of  Cardinal Ladaria and Cardinal Nicols.Neither will the speakers affirm the immutable truths on salvation, one of them being there is exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church and all non Catholics in the present times are oriented to Hell unless they enter the Church as members.-Lionel Andrades

1

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cardinals-burke-and-zen-to-address-confusion-in-the-church-at-conference-in






APRIL 4, 2018



There will be a false Profession of Faith at the Conference this Saturday in Rome

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/there-will-be-false-profession-of-faith.html