DIMOND BROTHERS ASSUME THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS VISIBLE TO US AND SO CRITICIZE JOHN SALZA

I can affirm the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus alongwith implicit baptism of desire etc and I do not have to become a sedevacantist. They can do the same.

The Dimond Brothers just assume ,like members of the ‘Vatican Council II sect’ that we actually know people saved in invincible ignorance and implicit desire/the baptism of desire. So any one who accepts implicit desire/the baptism of desire is a heretic for them. Since he would be contradicting the defined dogma.

If they realized that implicit desire is implicit for us and explicit only for God then they would know that these cases are not exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma.

However traditionalists and the Vatican Curia assume, like the sedevacantists, that the there is a visible baptism of desire.

The Dimond brothers will not discuss this issue on their website Most Holy Family Monastery (E-Exchanges).I can affirm the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus alongwith implicit baptism of desire etc and I do not have to become a sedevacantist. They can do the same.

It is heresy to reject a defined dogma, however those who do so are doing it out of ignorance, without really thinking, they assume that implicit desire/the baptism of desire is visible to us.

The Dimond brothers have now called apologist John Salza a heretic.

From the Most Holy Family Monastery website with comments:

P. 26 – SALZA TEACHES THAT THERE IS SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH

Salza promotes the idea that some people “outside of the Church” would qualify for “invincible ignorance” and thus could be saved “outside of the Church.” This is blatantly heretical.

Lionel:

This is 'blatant heresy' for the MHFM since they assume that those saved in invincible ignorance are known to us and so they are explicit exceptions to the dogma.

MHFM:

There is no salvation outside the Church. There are no exceptions, as numerous ex cathedra pronouncements make clear.

Lionel:

Yes - defacto there are no exceptions and invincible ignorance etc are not defacto, explicit exceptions.

MHFM

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”

Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex cathedra: “For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith.”

Lionel:

Correct .Defacto, in fact, explicitly everyone needs to be a member of the Church and there are no known exceptions.

MHFM:

Salza is a believer in the heresy of salvation for members of any religion through “baptism of desire” and “invincible ignorance.”

Lionel:

Baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are always implicit, for us.They are never known to us. They are explicit only for God.We can only accept them in principle. So in principle a non Catholic can be saved ‘in certain circumstances’(Letter of the Holy Office 1949) with the baptism of desire etc.

MHFM

All of the objections he brings up on this matter are refuted in our book and materials.

Lionel:

The book and materials assume that we know in the persent times, these cases saved and who are in Heaven.

MHFM:

Since Salza believes in the possibility of “invincible ignorance” for people outside the Church,

Lionel:

Yes as a possibility it was also accepted by the Church Fathers and even the Council of Trent.

MHFM

he believes a Jew who rejects Christ or a Muslim in Pakistan or a Buddhist in the Far East could be saved.

Lionel:

God could send someone to baptize them before they die as St.Thomas Aquinas taught.

MHFM

That is heretical; it’s incompatible with true faith in Christ, and it leads to apostasy.

Lionel:

If he is making the distinction between in principle and in fact it is not heresy and does not violate the Principle of Non Contradiction.

P. 27 – SALZA CONTRADICTS HIMSELF ON PIUS IX AND “INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE”

On page 27, Salza admits that our position on Pius IX’s teaching in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, that those who are in “invincible ignorance,” if they are of good will, will be brought to baptism and the true faith, is “plausible.”

Lionel:

Yes it is plausible and known only to God.

MHFM:

Salza is therefore admitting that our understanding of Pius IX’s (fallible) document, according to which Pius IX was not teaching that souls who are left in “invincible ignorance” can be saved, might be correct.

Lionel:

Pope Pius IX did not state that those saved in invincible ignorance are explicit or that they contradict the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

-Lionel Andrades

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/E-Exchanges.php

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Articles/john_salza_has_no_idea_what_he_is_talking_about.php