No one is claiming that salvation, with or without sacramental Baptism, is "visible." I know that you think that people (the 1949 Holy Office Letter, the SSPX, etc.) are implying that, but believe me, they deny any such implication. If you don't believe me, then ask them!
Lionel:
You've left the old line of thought we were discussing.
Are you aware that there can be an implicit ( invisible) for us baptism of desire and an explicit ( visible) baptism of desire in this discussion on the Holy Office 1949.
So we can discuss the baptism of desire as being hypothetical or defacto ( known or seen in real life).
The baptism of desire is implicit ( invisible) for us. It is a hypothetical subject.You have cited it here:
The Baltimore Catechism answers this:
Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?
The baptism of desire is ALWAYS a hypothetical subject.It is ALWAYS invisible for us.
For the baptism of desire to be an exception to all needing to enter the Church with the baptism of water in 2014 it would have to be explicit us for us.There would have to be a case visible.Then this would be a visible exception.
A hypothetical case cannot be a defacto ( known, visible) exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Yet the Holy Office, the SSPX websites and pro SSPX forums criticize Fr.Leonard Feeney and cite the baptism of desire, as if it was relevent to the priest's understanding of the dogma on exclusive salvation.
Why? Since they believe there is salvation outside the Church, and that a person can be saved with ( defacto) baptism of desire ( which is not hypothetical).
You have cited a hypothetical case from the Council of Basil and then inferred it is visible for us and then you have concluded that it is an exception to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
-Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment