Dialogue with the MHFM continued after a pause

MHFM:

Since you continue to send us your heretical nonsense, we will say: 

It would be nice to get a chance to debate you and destroy your lies, but you are too much of a coward.

Lionel:

I invited you to discuss this issue on a blog or website of your choosing but you declined.The offer is still open.You present your arguments and I shall present mine.

People who know me, know I do not use the phone.I have never used Skpe in my life.Neither do I have a cell phone.I communicate via the Internet.

MHFM:

  Also, you are a possessed follower of Antichrist John Paul II. 

Lionel:

A great admirer!

MHFM:

Your arguments are thoroughly dishonest and would be destroyed in five minutes.  You are a possessed liar. 

Lionel:

What argument? I am basically saying that we cannot see the dead on earth.I have repeated this numerous times in my correspondence with you.

We cannot see the dead on earth, who are now in Heaven saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance.So these cases are not explicit exceptions, to all needing the baptism of water for salvation, in the present times.For them to be an exception they would have to be known. We would have to be able to see someone on earth saved as such.'Zero cases of something are not exceptions',says the apologist John Martigioni. He agrees with me that the baptism of desire is not physically visible. So it is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.When will you address this issue?

They are possibilities, they are hypothetical cases but they are not exceptions to the dogma. They are irrelevant to the dogma.

They are relevant for you since you consider them explicit, visible in the flesh exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

This is all that I am saying.

 MHFM:

We wish for your conversion, however, as unlikely as that is. 

Almost everything you write on these issues is a lie. 

Lionel:

Visible baptism of desire I see as a basic error in your writing.Similarly all salvation mentioned in Vatican Council II or other magisterial documents are implicit for us and explicit only for God.You assume they are explicit for us.

Often you cite the baptism of desire but never differentiate between what is objective and subjective, explicit and implicit, visible and invisible.Since you do not make this distinction Vatican Council II ( NA 2, LG 16, LG 8 etc) appear as explicit exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is the Cushingite error.The confusion first emerged in Boston in 1949 and then was extended to Vatican Council II, by the Jesuits and Cardinal Richard Cushing.

MHFM:

 The fact that you claim Vatican II did not teach salvation outside the Church shows you have no credibility.

Lionel:

Vatican Council II has not said that there is known salvation outside the Church.

Vatican Council II has no where said that there are defacto cases saved in the present times outside the visible limits of the Church.

Vatican Council II has no where said that  all do not need faith and baptism for salvation.

Vatican Council II has no where said that implicit for us cases are explicit.

MHFM:

  You avoided our point that it teaches that Protestants and schismatics who dissent from Catholic teaching are in the Church of Christ.

Lionel:

Lumen Gentium 8 does not state that these cases are defacto known in the present times. So they are not exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

The Council does not state that subsistit it refers to visible, nameable cases in the present times.So hypothetical cases, possibilities known only to God, cannot be exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church.

Schismatics and Protestants who dissent from Catholic teaching and who are now saved are known only to God.They are hypothetical cases for us.They do not exist in our reality in 2014. We cannot name any one, as such, who has been saved or is going to be saved this year.So we cannot say that there is any one in 2014, as such, who is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

You personally do not know any such case and the Council does not mention any one so why do yu infer that they are exceptions?

May be you both need to discuss this.

MHFM:

That's HERESY. 

Lionel:

It is heresy if Vatican Council II said that these are explicit cases in the present times.The Council does not mention that we can know these cases.In your mind these cases are explicit. So naturally this would be heresy.

For me these cases are implicit. So I affirm implicit for us baptism of desire. I am not denying the baptism of desire. I do not have to. Since it is not relevant to the dogma. This is why the Church Councils did not mention it when they defined the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, three times.

MHFM:

See our video, Vatican II's Protestant Heresy.

Lionel:

I have seen it sometime back, also other videos. The same error of the visible baptism of desire is there. This is an error that runs through your videos.

Those saved in 'imperfect communion with the Church'(Unitatis Redintigratio 3) are not known to us in the present times. So they are not defacto exceptions.Every reference to salvation in Vatican Council II is theoretical for us. It is hypothetical. This is a given.

Even those whom the Church has declared be saints we accept them in faith. We cannot physically see St. Francis of Assisi.

Implicit cases of someone saved in imperfect communion with the Church are compatible with all needing to explicitly  enter the Church with the baptism of water. This does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Similarly implicit for us  baptism of desire, invisible for us baptism of desire, known only to God baptism of desire is not an explicit exception to the dogma on salvation. It does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction.They are compatible.I can affirm both baptism of desire and extra ecclesiam nulla salus at the same time.As it is said, 'I can have it both ways'.

MHFM:

 You are a heretic and a defender of heresy.

Lionel: I would be a heretic if I said that I affirm 'explicit for us baptism of desire'. This would be heresy.I would be saying every one does not need to enter the Catholic Church.

I reject explicit for us baptism of desire and affirm implicit for us baptism of desire.

You keep writing about the baptism of desire.When will you address this issue i.e physically invisible for us baptism of desire not being a known or physical exception in the present times, to all needing the baptism of water for salvation (with no exceptions).

Your writing on this subject is restricted to theology.I am speaking at the empirical, philosophical, level.It is common sense, it is intellectually accepted that we cannot physically see the dead who are  saved with the baptism of desire.So how can somebody who physically does not exist on earth ,in our reality,be an exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation?

MHFM:

There is hardly a bit of truth in you, and you are certainly on the road to Hell.

Lionel:

It is you who deny the baptism of desire ( implicit for us).

It is you who condemn Pope John Paul , when Vatican Council II (without your irrational premise) is traditional.

For me Vatican Council II is traditional. Since all salvation mentioned or alluded to in the Council is not an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.You cannot name any exception in 2014 or the last few years.

There are priests, professors of theology and philosophy in Rome, who agree with me. They affirm the traditional interpretation of the dogma just as you correctly do. However they say, unlike you, that the baptism of desire is not relevant or an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.You could phone them  and then quote them on your website.

In Christ

Lionel