I sent the following blog post toFr. Benedict Hughes, CMRI.This is the sedevacantist community which does not accept Vatican Council II which they interpret using the false premise ( dead in Heaven are visible to us on earth).Where does the Catholic Church teach that the baptism of Blood and of Desire are physically visible and known to us in the present times (2014) ?
He responded:
I recommend to you the website: www.baptismofdesire.com. It has a great deal of helpful information on the Church teaching.
God bless you.
Fr. Benedict Hughes, CMRI
So I wrote to them at www.baptismofdesire.com.
Praised be Jesus and Our Lady.
Could you kindly respond to this article on your website.
Where does the Catholic Church teach that the baptism of Blood and of Desire are physically visible and known to us in the present times (2014) ?
I Lionel Andrades a Catholic lay man in Rome who has a blog Eucharist and Mission accept implicit for us baptism of desire and reject explicit for us baptism of desire. For me the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are always invisible and accepted in faith.It is accepted in principle as a possibility but rejected as a defacto ( in reality) case. I do not know any person saved with the baptism if desire this year and neither do I believe any one else.
I mention this, since for the baptism of desire to be an exception or even relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus it would have to be physically visible and known to us in the present times.'A zero case of something is not an exception' says the American Catholic apologist John Martigioni. He too like me says that the baptism of desire is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is also the view of Archbishop Thomas Gullickson, the U.S Nuncio to the Ukraine.There are also priests in Rome who have told me that the baptism of desire is not an exception to the literal and tradiitonal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.It has nothing to do with the dogma.
So I accept the baptism of desire list which you have provided. I accept the baptism of desire but it is always implicit for me. None of the quotations which you have cited state that the baptism of desire is physically visible to us or that it is an explicit exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So I do not have a problem with the baptism of desire.
I affirm implicit for us baptism of desire along with the 'rigorist interpretation' of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the Church Councils, popes, saints, Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston,the present day community of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary,Vatican Council II ( Ad Gentes 7),Catechism of the Catholic Church 845,846,1257,1260,Dominus Iesus 20 etc.
Since you assume that the baptism of desire is an exception to extra eccleisam nulla salus you are inferring that these cases are visible in the flesh. Otherwise they would not be exceptions. You are also inferring that you can see the dead- saved with the baptism of desire etc.This is heresy.Since you are denying a defined dogma whose text does not mention any exceptions and you are changing the Nicene Creed from'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin' to 'I believe in three known baptisms for the forgiveness of sin, water, desire and blood'. This is irrational The baptism of desire and blood can only be judged and known by God.The baptism of water is visible and repeatable.It is the only defacto baptism.
May be about a year back I sent you this same information but you have not addressed it on your website.
Please note I do not deny the baptism of desire pe se. I qualify that there is only an implicit for us baptism of desire which is hypothetical and which I accept in faith.It is always implicit for us.This is what I affirm.Since it is implicit it does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction with reference to all needing to enter the Church with the baptism of water and Catholic Faith for salvation.Defacto there are NO EXCEPTIONS.I cannot meet someone in 2014 saved with the baptism desire.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made a mistake in inferring that the baptism of desire was visible to us in the present times and so was an alleged exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is the Richard Cushing Error which was overlooked also by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Catholic traditionalists and sedevacantists.
This same irrational thinking on the visible to us baptism of desire is extended to Vatican Council II. So the sedevacantists for example, reject Vatican Council II since visible for them 'a ray of the Truth'(NA 2), explicit for them being saved with the 'seeds of the Word'(AG 11) and seen in the flesh cases of non Catholics saved 'in imperfect communion with the Church'(UR 3) are explicit exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Tradition.
This error of the visible-dead exceptions is the missing link which makes Vatican Council II traditional or non traditional.Without this false premise Vatican Council II is traditional on the issues of other religions and Christian communities and Churches.Ad Gentes 7 says all need 'faith and baptism' for salvation. Hindus,Buddhists,Jews,Muslims etc do not have 'faith and baptism' needed for salvation. Christian communities do not have Catholic Faith which includes the Sacraments through which Jesus saves and the faith and moral teachings of the Catholic Church, with which one avoids mortal sin and preserves Sanctifying Grace.In Heaven there are only Catholics who are there with 'faith and baptism' and without mortal sin.
Finally, for me the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was an inter office communication without the seal of the Secretary of the Holy Office.It was hidden for three years and then released by the liberal lobby in Boston.It was placed in the Denzinger by Fr.Karl Rahner S.J and the source cited as the reference was not the Holy Office but an American publication !!.If you consider it a magisterial document then concede that the magisterium made a mistake.
In Christ
Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment