Jim: You are fixated with a false problem: how to reconcile traditional Catholic teaching on No Salvation Outside the Church with your critics holding that “an implicit baptism of desire is considered explicit and known to us”.
Lionel: I am glad you realize it is a problem and that there are people who believe ' an implicit baptism of desire is considered explicit and known to us'.
The problem still exists of you not identifying yourself as one of them.
Jim: 1. But neither your critics giving expression to the authentic teaching of the Church or the Magisterium of the Church itself teach that formulation which is full of ambiguity:
Lionel. Aside from the ‘critics’ please identify yourself as holding to this heresy.
Jim: 2. What the Church DOES TEACH is this:
a) there is an “implicit baptism of desire” that makes possible the salvation of non-Catholics;
Lionel: We have always agreed here.
Jim: b) that the EXISTENCE of an “impliict baptism of desire” Is a TRUTH of the faith that is EXPLICITLY KNOWN to us as affirmed in documents of the Magisterium;
Lionel: It is explicitly mentioned in the documents of the Church and is affirmed by both of us in principle. It is rejected by me as being known defacto and explicitly known in particular cases.
Jim: c) the Church does not KNOW the names of anyone saved by “implicit baptism of desire”;
Lionel: There is no document which makes this claim. Since it is not knowable to know any one.
Jim: 3. You have been very confused and incoherent in confounding what is EXPLICITLY KNOWN to Catholics:
Lionel: It could help if you would specify when you are speaking de jure( in principle) or de facto ( in reality) then may be there would be no confusion for you. There is none for me.
Jim: a) what is known explicitly by the believing Catholic IS the existence of “implicit baptism of desire”';
Lionel: In principle I accept the Church documents (Council of Trent etc) which mention an ‘implicit’ baptism of desire.In principle I reject a so-called explicitly known baptism of desire. As a ‘believing Catholic’ you are confused here.
Jim: b) what is NOT KNOWN EXPLICITLY IS WHO the unbaptized non-Catholics are specifically saved by such means.
Lionel: This is another issue. The issue is implicit salvation i.e those saved with the baptism of desire etc, which is an extra ordinary event known only to God.
Jim: 4. In any case, all who are saved are saved by the graces confided to the Catholic Church for distribution to sincere seekers of God.
Lionel: You are skirting the issue. You are unable to affirm the dogma Cantate Domino which indicates like Fr.Leonard Feeney that all need to explicitly enter the Church for salvation. You criticize Fr. Feeney but do not criticize the popes and saints who the same.
You are also unable to affirm Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II which says those who know about Jesus and the Church and do not enter are oriented to Hell. I provided you two names in this category and you did not reply.
You are denying an ex cathedra dogma and misquoting the Catechism; for you the Catechism is a break from tradition a rejection of the thrice defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
In principle every one who is saved is saved through Jesus and the Church and those who are saved in this category are known only to God. So it does not contradict Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, the popes, saints and Fr. Leonard Feeney.
Jim:
So, it is quite true that there is and can be no Salvation Outside the Catholic Church.
Lionel: It is NOT quite true for you. I have mentioned this before. You cannot affirm Cantate Domino. Also those who are saved with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance are not exceptions to the dogma Cantate Domino since we do not know any specific case of the baptism of desire etc.So you hold the same heretical position as the Cardinal Richard Cuishing and Fr. Hans Kung. Probably you reject the Church’s teaching on the infallibility of the pope as Fr. Kung did. He claimed that Lumen Gentium 16 referred to persons saved in invincible ignorance which is explicitly known to us so it contradicts the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So for him Vatican Council II ended the belief in the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra.
Jim: With their invisible and salvific belonging to the Catholic Church, however, UNBAPTIZED NON-CATHOLICS cannot be considered “Outside” the Catholic Church.
Lionel: The issue is not unbaptized non Catholics in general but those with the baptism of desire, those who die before receiving the baptism of water.
Jim: They are mysteriously ‘within” the Church.
Lionel: That unbaptized non Catholics are in general mysteriously within the Church is a new doctrine. The Church has always taught that the baptism of water and Catholic Faith was the ordinary means of salvation (Redemptoris Missio 55 ).
Jim: The Feeneyite error that one must be a VISIBLE MEMBER OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TO BE SAVED ignored all this developed teaching and has been rightly censured by the Magisterium.
Lionel: I have mentioned before there is no Church document which refers to a ‘development of doctrine’. The secular liberal media and Catholics like you interpret those saved with the baptism of desire etc as being in conflict with the ‘strict interpretation’ of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It can only by in conflict if the baptism of desire etc is explicitly known to us i.e if I was in Boston and bumped into someone saved with the baptism of desire. This person of course would not have to enter the Church with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water. He would be an exception to the dogmatic teaching as it was known for centuries by the popes and saints.Reason however tells us that the baptism of desire is known only to God.
Jim: 5. You do great harm to all those whom you E-mail with your very confused, incoherent, and erroneous criticisms of authentic Catholic teaching. It would do you credit to desist.
Lionel: I have affirmed an ex cathedra dogma and not claimed there are any exceptions to this teaching with an explicitly know baptism of desire etc. You could do the same.
Jim:
If you, alas, persist in muddling Catholic teaching, I am obliged to no longer respond to your communications.
Lionel : Even if you do you respond you could begin by affirming Cantate Domino, Council of Florence. A defined dogma does not develop. You cannot have two interpretations on the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady.
-Lionel Andrades
E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com
Posts
