Comment
Let me, yet again, summarize the points and highlight your error.(You have said that there are no literal cases of the baptism of desire(BOD). A few years back too you said that BOD, BOB and I.I are not exceptions to EENS.You don't know of a St.Emerentiana saved outside the Church in 2019 or during your lifetime. So we agree on the important basic important point.There are no practical exceptions to Feeneyite EENS. There are no exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II.This is a break with the Lefebvrists, the liberals and Masons on EENS and Vatican Council II. Welcome to the camp!)
Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation because it brings grace which washes away Original Sin.(Agreed)
But the grace can be obtained by the sacrament or desire for it (Trent).(Theoretically only.The Council of Trent does not state that there are personally known cases of the baptism of desire.The liberal theologians and the Lefebvrists infer it)
Thus, the sacrament is only a relative, not an absolute necessity.(There is no relative necessity since there are no known exceptions to EENS).
That is why none of your references say baptism OF WATER is an absolute necessity.(.(There is no relative necessity since there are no known exceptions to EENS. When there are no practical cases of BOD, BOB and I.I how can you we talk of a necessity of means and precept or absolute or relative necessity.)
Whether BOD is known to God alone is not relevant to the Church's teaching that the grace of baptism can be obtained by desire. You deny the Church's teaching by characterizing it as an exception to EENS, which is also false.(For me the baptism of desire is always hypothetical. So it is not an exception to EENS.The SSPX official website presents BOD is an exception to EENS.The SSPX bishops cannot recant since then they would be criticizing Archbishop Lefebvre.They would also be saying that they made an objective mistake on Vatican Council II and even after being informed do not have it them to correct the mistake and admit that they were wrong.So perhaps in this sense you are obligated to deny reason and reality.)
The burden on you is to show where the Church teaches the sacramental water is an absolute necessity, and not just baptism. ( You agree with me when I say that the baptism of water is necessary for salvation.This is good enough for me. This is the magisterial teaching of the Church before Pius XII.Since BOD is still an exception to EENS for you and the Lefebvre traditionalists, you have to infer that you know of literal cases saved outside the Church without the baptism of water.Since there are literal cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church, with BOD etc, it is important for you to make the distinction between absolute and relative.But not for me.
The baptism of water is defacto needed for salvation, this is the dogmatic teaching.This is the only baptism that we humans can know of .The other baptisms are speculation.Speculative baptisms of desire were never exceptions to EENS for the popes over the centuries before Pius XII.It never was an issue.When Trent mentions the desire thereof, it is to a speculative case.This would have been obvious to the popes of that time.It does not have to be announced or explained.)
Your reference to the Catechism of St Pius X proves too much for you and destroys your position because that same catechism teaches the grace of baptism can be obtained BY WATER OR DESIRE (just like the council taught), proving that the absolute necessity the catechism uses refers to the GRACE of baptism, NOT the water.(You agree that there are no literal cases of the baptism of desire in 2019.I repeat, you agree that there are no literal and personally known cases of BOD over the last 10 years or more.So what is the point in repeating this.You are a neo-Feeneyite.Soon your SSPX friends will disown you.
You are saying like Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston that there are no literal cases of the baptism of desire in your reality. Like Fr. Leonard Feeney you are also saying that all need the baptism of water for salvation.So what's the issue? Welcome home!)
Again, because you cannot rebut the foregoing by showing the water (not just the grace) is an absolute necessity, this debate is over.( I did not know that this was a debate.I was simply having a discussion with a Catholic who says there are no literal cases known to him of a non Catholic saved in 2019 with the baptism of desire. So he would not know of any practical exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.I say the same. The popes before Pius XII have said the same. We do not have to choose between EENS and BOD. We can affirm both, they are compatible, as long as it is understood that there are no literal cases of BOD for us human beings.) -Lionel Andrades
JUNE 12, 2019
Traditionalist professors in England interpret Vatican Council II and EENS like the Westminster new programs on mission and catechesis
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/06/traditionalists-professors-in-england.html
JUNE 17, 2019
All the popes before Pius XII supported the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) with BOD, BOB and I.I not referring to personally known non Catholics. So they were not exceptions to EENS. The popes could affirm EENS and BOD,BOB and I.I it was not either-or. They did not have to choose.Vatican Council II can be interpreted in the same way-in harmony with the popes and saints over the centuries on EENS
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/06/all-popes-since-pius-xii-supported.html
JUNE 17, 2019
The error was accepted by Archbishop Lefebvre, Cardinal Ottaviani, Michael Davies and the traditionalists of their time,for whom BOD, BOB and I.I were exceptions to EENS. Then they made the same mistake in their interpretation of Vatican Council II. LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc were exceptions to EENS for them. The error can be read on line in one of the Letters to Friends and Benefactors written by Bishop Bernard Fellay.For him UR 3 was an exception to EENS
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/06/the-error-was-accepted-by-archbishop.html
JUNE 15, 2019
Lega members need to contact Cardinal Luiz Ladaria and write to Fr. Antonio Spadero: stop teaching the New Theology which is based upon a falsehood
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/06/lega-members-need-to-contact-cardinal.html
JUNE 12, 2019
Westminster offers new programs which re-interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and reject the traditional understanding of Mission and salvation
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/06/westminister-offers-new-programs-which.html
JUNE 11, 2019
The Church says that when I meet a non Catholic I know he or she is oriented to Hell
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/06/the-church-says-that-when-i-meet-non.html
JUNE 11, 2019
For me the present two popes and the CDF are heretical and irrational. They violate the Principle of Non Contradiction. It is the same error made my the traditionalists and sedevacantists in the interpretation of Vatican Council II
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/06/for-me-the-present-two-popes-and-cdf.html
JUNE 10, 2019
CDF is heretical and irrational and the evidence is there on lineJUNE 10, 2019
All the popes, Creeds and catechisms before Pope Pius XII support Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston when the small 't' is not mistaken for being the big 'T'
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/06/all-popes-creeds-and-catechisms-before.html
JUNE 10, 2019
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment