Wednesday, July 2, 2014

The fruits of explicit for us baptism of desire and not implicit for us baptism of desire



In this video it is assumed wrongly that the baptism of desire is explicit for us and not implicit for us.
Since the baptism of desire is explicit it is considered an exception to the need for all to receive Sacramental Baptism for salvation.
 
 
The error has come into the Catholic Church when the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 assumed that those saved with implicit desire and in invincible ignorance were  physically visible to us . These physically cases were then assumed to be physical exceptions to all needing to convert into the Catholic Church with the baptism of water.
If any one says that the baptism of desire is explicit and not implicit, visible and not invisible it is irrational and non Traditional. It is a factual error.It is a fact of life that we cannot see the dead-saved with the baptism of desire.



This would be an error  for the cardinal who issued the  Letter of the Holy Office.It would be an error if a  pope  held  to this irrationality.
 
It was an objective mistake to state that there was known salvation outside the Church.Since we do not know of any such case.We cannot name any one saved outside the Church. Secondly this was not implied in any Church document before the Letter of the Holy Office.
 
So a Catholic can affirm implicit for us baptism of desire along with the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the traditional interpretation.
 
It was wrong for the Holy Office 1949 to imply that the baptism of desire was relevant or an exception to the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney. It was wrong for the Holy Office and Cardinal Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston to expect Fr. Leonard Feeney to say that he knew of visible cases saved with the baptsim of desire. The  catechumen who died before he received the baptism of water was a hypothetical case.
 



Fr.Leonard Feeney should not have been expected to claim that this hypothetical case was an exception to the traditional understanding of the dogma which he held.An hypothesis is not a physical person.-Lionel Andrades

6 comments:

Elaine Cooke said...

What is this explicit implicit thing? Baptism of desire is not a teaching of the Church. It doesn't help any living person whatsoever, rather it harms their faith, makes them lax, denies the doctrine of baptism, denies the need for church membership, denies Christ's words, denies the dogma of EENS, denies all the canons in Trent and makes the Church and God liars.


God is not hindered by lack of water. He gets all the elect baptism. There is no need for baptism of desire. God is not impotent. And He is not a liar.

There is a perfectly sound way to acknowledge the true teachings, the canons, Christ Himself, and honor our Almighty God in all of His divine mercy: God gets baptism for all His elect.

Catholic Mission said...

Elaine,
I agree with you in general.
There is so much of confusion since Cardinal Marchetti Selvaggiani (1949)inferred that the baptism of desire was an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
In other words there would have to be explicit cases in the present times for there to be an exeption to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
You and I know that in 2015 there is no explicit case of someone who will be saved without the baptism of water. We cannot meet or know an exception. So there is no baptism of desire exception to the 'rigorist ' and traditional interpretation of the dogma.
The baptism of desire is irrelevant.
So one can consider the baptism of desire as a possibility, known only to God, which will be followed by the baptism of water.

With or without the baptism of water ( for those who beleive that the baptism of desire offers salvation wihout the baptism of water) the baptism of desire is not visible, objective, explicit and known in personal cases.So it has nothing to do with the dogma. Cardinal Marchetti made an objective mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office.
Similarly Vatican Counc II's LG 16, LG 6, NA 2, UR 3 etc are not known in the present times and they would be followed with the baptism of water. They would have to be followed by the baptism of water since this is the de fide teaching.
So there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the Church Councils, popes, saints and Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston.

What is this explicit implicit thing? Baptism of desire is not a teaching of the Church. It doesn't help any living person whatsoever, rather it harms their faith, makes them lax, denies the doctrine of baptism, denies the need for church membership, denies Christ's words, denies the dogma of EENS, denies all the canons in Trent and makes the Church and God liars.

Lionel
: There is no explicit baptism of desire for us.No such case exists in our reality.So it has nothing to do with extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
We have to avoid the Marchetti inference.
__________________


God is not hindered by lack of water. He gets all the elect baptism. There is no need for baptism of desire. God is not impotent. And He is not a liar.

There is a perfectly sound way to acknowledge the true teachings, the canons, Christ Himself, and honor our Almighty God in all of His divine mercy: God gets baptism for all His elect.

Lionel:
Yes.
_________________

Elaine Cooke said...

Vatican II was pastoral, and nothing was defined that we must believe. However, to say it is without error is preemptive. Many scholars say otherwise.

Catholic Mission said...

Elaine:
However, to say it (Vatican Council II)is without error is preemptive. Many scholars say otherwise.

Lionel:
Interpret Vatican Council II with the Marchetti inference and there is an obvious error. The scholars have noticed it,yes.

If one avoids the false premise then there is nothing in the Council to contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney and Tradition on other religions and ecumenism.

For example all salvation referred to in Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 is IMPLICIT, THEORETICAL, INVISIBLE, DEJURE(ACCEPTED IN PRINCIPLE ONLY),SUBJECTIVE FOR US, NOW IN HEAVEN.It is not EXPLICIT, PRACTICALLY KNOWN, VISIBLE,DEFACTO(known in reality),OBJECTIVE, ON EARTH (as compared to Heaven) and REAL (as opposed to hypothetical).

For the Vatican, the religious community the Franciscans of the Immaculate, have to accept a Vatican Council II in which all references to salvation ( imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3), seeds of the Word (AG 11), saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16 etc) are EXPLICIT, PRACTICALLY KNOWN, VISIBLE, DEFACTO(known in reality),OBJECTIVE, ON EARTH (as compared to Heaven) and REAL (as opposed to hypothetical). This is wrong! - and the fault is not with Vatican Council II.

1) All references to salvation in Vatican Council II are NOT implicit, invisible and hypothetical for Fr.Fidenzio Volpi, Commissioner of the F.I and Cardinal Braz de Aviz, Prefect of the Congregation for Religious, Vatican. They are IRRATIONALLY explicit, visible in the flesh and seen in real life in 2015.
The Sisters of the Immaculate should not be expected to assume that these cases are defacto known to them in the present times.This is irrational and THIS irrationality is independent of Vatican Council II.

This is irrational and independent of the Council, whether you consider Vatican Council II pastoral or dogmatic.

CONTINUED

Catholic Mission said...

CONTINUED

2) Being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16), elements of sanctification and truth (LG 8), good and holy things in other religions (NA 2), imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3), seeds of the Word (AG 11) are implicit, invisible in personal cases and hypothetical for us all.

The Sisters must not be expected to assume that these cases are visible, explicit and , known in reality in 2015. Yet this error is being imposed on them in the name of Vatican Council II and no one has raised this point yet.

3) Since all salvation referred to in Vatican Council II are probabilities, and not defacto known in personal cases, they are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or Ad Gentes 7 (all need faith and baptism for salvation)

Yet the Franciscans of the Immaculate priests are expected to assume that these cases are exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation and so infer that this is the teaching of Vatican Council II.

4) In the Catholic diocese of Worcester,USA , the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the community of Fr.Leonard Feeney who have full canonical status.They affirm the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
All salvation mentioned in Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston(issued by Cardinal Marchetti) are not exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
So all religious communities, including the Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate, can affirm the dogma on exclusive salvation in accord with Vatican Council II (AG 7).They only have to avoid the premise which causes the break with Tradition and is used by Braz de Avez and Volpi.

Avoid the premise and the pastoral Council is in line with traditional dogma. It is pro tradition.

Traditionalists do not have to be on the defensive here and say Vatican Council to is a pastoral Council.

CONTINUED

Catholic Mission said...

CONTINUED

5) Cardinal João Braz de Aviz and Fr. Fidenzio Volpi, made a Profession of Faith, upon taking their new assignment during the pontificate of Pope Francis. They must have recited the Nicene Creed.In the Nicene Creed they said ' I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin'.
Were they referring to one known baptism, the baptism of water and not three known baptisms water, desire and blood.?
The baptism of desire is not known to us explicitly and martyrdom is only judged by God.

In the Nicene Creed we also pray 'I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church...'.
For Cardinal Braz de Aviz and Fr.Fidenzio Volpi the Holy Spirit teaches the Catholic Church that the dead saved in invincible ignorance are visible to us on earth for them to be exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors ( on other religions and Christian communities and churches) and Ad Gentes 7. So they will support their non traditional view with Vatican Council II.But where is the text in the Council to support this irrationality? There is none. It only exists when the Marchetti inference is used.


6) The Franciscans of the Immaculate could attend the Novus Ordo or Tridentine Rite Mass and affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and Vatican Council II. Ecclesiology has not been changed if the Marchetti error is avoided.

Since there are no explicit, visible,defacto, objective, known exceptions in 2015 to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, there is no basis for 'a theology of religions', 'new ecclesiology', 'ecumenism of non return' and 'development of doctrine' on salvation. There is no reference text in Vatican Council II to support all this new theology.
Cardinal Braz de Aviz and Fr.Fidenzio Volpi do not know the name of anyone saved outside the Catholic Church in 2013-2015.


8) When the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1257) says God is not limited to the Sacraments , it is referring to cases known only to God and which are invisible, hypothetical, accepted in theory, accepted in principle (de jure) and not explicit and known in personal cases. So these cases are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Yet they are exceptions for Cardinal Braz de Aviz and Fr.Fidenzio Volpi.The fault is with the interpretation.

9) When the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846 indicates that all who are saved in other religions are saved through Jesus and the Church, these cases are not explicit for Cardinal Braz de Aviz and Fr.Fidenzio Volpi.So they are not exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and the traditional teaching on other religions and Christians communities and churches. Yet they both mix up what is invisible for what is visible and suggest this is the teaching of Vatican Council II.And no one calls attention to this.

10) Those who know that the Catholic Church was founded by God through Jesus Christ and yet do not enter and are damned (LG 14) and those in invincible ignorance of the Gospel through no fault of their own and who are saved (LG 16) are hypothetical cases and so are not exceptions to Tradition.So where is the fault of Vatican Council II ?

11) So Cardinal Braz de Aviz and Fr.Fidenzio Volpi can affirm Vatican Council II in accord with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Nicene Creed when they avoid the Marchetti inference. Vatican Council II would be traditional.

CONCLUDED