Here is a continuation of the last dialogue with James. The type in orange is his new contribution to which I have responded in white.
1, The Balamand Declaration because of its errors was NOT accepted by Cardinal Ratzinger and CDF nor was there any overall approval for Balamand by Pope Benedict XVI.
Lionel:
I understand. This is what was said at that time.The Declaration is now available on the website of the Vatican's International Theological Commission. It is approved also on the websites of the USCCB and the Conference of Catholic Bishops of England and Wales. Many dialogue documents are posted without being regarded as being officially approved.
Lionel:
However defacto this is the irrational theology being taught at the Catholic universities and parishes.It is clear that they are no no more saying that every one needs to be a formal member of the Church. Since they assume there are known exceptions in the present times.
This was the error which comes from the Letter of the Holy Office and the excommunication of Fr.Leonard Feeney. 1
There are no known cases of non Catholics saved with the baptism of desire or in in invincible ignroance.So how can they be exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. 'Elementary , my dear Watson, Elementary!' If something or someone is not there how can it be an exception or a substitute ?
2. there is no error in CCC #1257 but traditional teaching.
Lionel:
CCC contradicts itself.To say that all do not need the baptism of water for salvation is heresy.It is negating the defined dogma on salvation and the Nicene Creed. This is a mortal sin of faith.
James:
3, You totally distort Magisterial doctrine (allowing for the salvation of non-Catholics and the unbaptized) by claiming any such saved have to be ”personally known and physically visible”!
Lionel:
If the baptism of desire etc is an exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation for you, then it would have to be known to you, in personal cases.
If you do not know anyone saved with the baptism of desire etc then say that all in 2014 need the baptism of water for salvation and you do not know of any exceptions this year.
Consequently, since such can not be known, there can be no exceptions to “nullus salus extra Ecclesiam:.
Lionel:
Here you are saying there are no known exceptions but elsewhere you infer there are exceptions.
Lionel:
I would agree with you that there can be no exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.(However below you suggest that there are exceptions to all needing to be formal members of the Church). If you want to use the word “exception” with regard to needing to be formal members of the Church to be saved, O.K., but such are not exceptions to the need to be within the Church as joined and linked or related to it!
Lionel:
We cannot see anyone 'joined or linked and related to it'.This is something theoretical and has nothing to do with all needing to be formal members of the Church.
Yet CCC 1258-1260 says there are substitutes for the baptism of water. Baptism of desire and baptism by blood (of martyrs) have always been acknowledged in the Church. CCC has nothing new there! They have the same effect as baptism of water in the name of the Trinity.
Lionel:
No one before the pontificate of Pope Pius XII inferred that:-
1.These cases are visible to us in real life.
2. They are explicit exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus
There are some persons in Rome for example in 2014 who do not need the baptism of water? Who are they? Where are the substitutes on earth? All need baptism but baptism of desire and baptism of blood bring sanctifying grace to the soul of those who do not have access to a minister of baptism (priest, deacon, or lay person).
Lionel: Bring sanctifying grace to the soul? We cannot administer the baptism of desire and blood . It is not physical. The baptism of water only is physical. It can be seen and repeated.
We cannot read the heart of a person of good will who qualifies for baptism of desire or baptism of blood, so he or she cannot be identified. Here one is dealing with the invisible working of the Holy Spirit.
Lionel:
Yes. So why do you insist that these cases are exceptions or substitutes in real life, to all needing the baptism of water ?. You cannot meet any one saved with the baptism of blood or desire. It is a gift of the Holy Spirit.It cannot also be followed with the baptism of water.
1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.
With reference to the Necessity of Baptism ,God ' is not bound by his sacraments.'?. St. Augustine and St. Thomas and other Fathers of the Church said exactly that!
Lionel:
They have said instead that God is bound to the Sacraments.
Whom do you know this year who is not bound to the Sacraments and will be saved ?
'is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament', why is this mentioned ? Do we know any such case on earth? Can we judge? Does this imply that these cases are visible in the flesh?. The mysterious ways of God in dealing with souls regarding the salvation of non-Catholics and non-Christians are invisible to us, and so we cannot identify the persons in question.
Lionel:
The Church says all non Catholics need faith and baptism for salvation (AG 7, CCC 1257,CCC 846 etc).Those who die without it are on the way to Hell according to the Catholic Church and you James, do not know a single exception in 2014.
So the Balamand Declaration says that there is no more an ecumenism of return.(N.30).Why which New revelation says there are known exceptions and where are these exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, so that there is now known salvation among Protestants,d Orthodox Christians etc., The ITC theological papers say there is salvation outside the Church and so all do not need to convert into the Church. This is being taught at the Catholic universities and seminaries here in Rome.
James:
Your interpretation is absurd. No one living in this world can be identified by the Catholic Church as definitively saved or lost.
Lionel:
My interpretation is rational and yours is not . I am affirming the traditional teaching along with Vatican Council II. I am also saying that there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
You instead are saying that the baptism of desire etc are substitutes for the baptism of water.This is irrational since you do not know any substitute i.e someone who is in Heaven this year without the baptism of water.
The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance had nothing to do with the tradtional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney. The magisterium made a mistake.
Lionel:
Agreed. No one.So how can the Catechism 1257 etc infer that there are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Why was Fr.Leonard Feeney criticized on this point?Where are the exceptions to his literal interpretation of the dogma on salvation? as noted previously, as being mysteriously within the Church, they are not “exceptions” extra ecclesiam! Feeney was in serious error in thinking one had to be a visible member of the Catholic Church to be saved. The Church never officially taught that rigorism which excluded non-Catholics from salvation!
Lionel:
There are numerous saints who taught for centuries that one had to be a formal member ( with faith and baptism) of the Catholic Church for salvation.
It's the liberals who have brought in this irrationality of there being exceptions, explicit substitutes for the baptism of water.Those who do not hold this new irrational and heretical doctrine are called being rigorist.In the words of Pope Francis, not affirming the irrationality, is 'triumphalism'.
So now they say there is no more an ecumenism of return.They say the Holy Office excommunicated Fr.Leonard Feeney since he would not admit he could see the dead now in Heaven who were visible exceptions to all needing to be a formal member of the Catholic Church.!?
If any one says that the dead are visible to us in general, we reject it, even if it is the pope implying it.
James:
The Church has no insight into whether any living individual has sufficiently corresponded with the graces necessary for salvation or will die in the state of grace.
Lionel:
Agreed.
James:
4. All the authentic Church documents are saying is that God gives grace to all to be saved (whether through the Sacraments or in an extraordinary way), but the salvation of anyone cannot be known with certainty while they are on pilgrimage in this world. It is only after death that the Church can officially declare one among the blessed.
Lionel:
If they were saying just this it would be fine.
But you know that Fr.Leonard Feeney is reported excommunicated for denying that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 referenced in the Catechism makes this point.It can be read in the text.No one has refuted it from the Magisterium.
The Catechism says there are exceptions. The baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are exceptions.(CCC 1258.60 etc)
The ITC says on its website that Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance etc are exceptions to the literal interpretation of Fr. Leonard Feeney.It says that the old ecclesiology is not more there...The cause for your confusion is your fixation on the word “exception” in taking issue with the Church’s official teaching.
Lionel:
If there is no more an ecumenism of return then it means not every one needs Catholic Faith with the baptism of water for salvation.It implies there are exceptions.
The CCC never uses the word “exception” regarding non-Catholics who can be saved. It does not do so because baptism of desire and
Baptism are equivalent to baptism of water, having the same effect.
Baptism are equivalent to baptism of water, having the same effect.
Lionel:
So they are replacements for the baptism of water in real life for you? If you make the distinction between implicit and explicit, de jure ( in principle) and defacto it would be helpful.
Defacto there are replacements for the baptism of water?
So they do not constitute “exceptions”! They are saved because they have cooperated with graces received through Christ and His Catholic Church which are ONE.
Lionel:
Agreed in theory. However de facto where are these cases sen on earth, to be relevant to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney ?
James:
5. Actually, the Catholic Church does not sanction “exceptions” to “No salvation outside the Church”.
Lionel:
It implies it .Since for centuries the traditional teaching was that every one needed to be a formal member of the Church for salvation.No, some theologians taught that, but the great majority discarded that opinion in a deeper study of the question.
Lionel:
According to the website of the International Theological Commission,ITC, Vatican the theologians assumed that Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance) was an exception to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
So the theologians assumed there were known exceptions /substitutes saved without the baptism of water.
Then for the ITC, the baptism of desire etc is an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.You can read this on their website . In other words there are known cases who are exceptions. They would have to be known and visible to be exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.
I am surprised that you do not see that your and Fr. Feeney’s opinion has been decisevly rejected by the Magisterium of the Church.
Lionel:
In the excommuncation of Fr.Leonard Feeney there was a factual mistake made by the magisterium. It is a fact of life that we cannot see the dead. So how can the dead saved with the baptism of desire etc be visible exceptions to the traditional teaching of Fr.Leonard Feeney ? I do not like saying this.The correction can be made we can go forward.
It is clear , for even a non Catholic or a young student, that we cannot see any baptism of desire case. So it could not be considered relevant to the traditional interpretation of the dogma.This was an oversight of the magisterium.
Instead of the error being corrected in the Catechism of the Catholic Church it is carried over in 1257. Also CCC 846 refers to outside the Church there is no salvation as an aphorism. lt is not an aphorism it is a dogma of the Church. Pope Pius XII called it an 'infallible teaching' (Letter of the Holy Office 1949).For political reasons , perhaps,the text of the dogma was not reproduced in the Catechism.Or it was just an oversight when they assumed that there were known exceptions to the dogma on salvation and so the dogma was no more relevant..
You have sadly set your face like flint against the clear doctrine of the Magisterium as reaffirmed in the CCD and other magisterial documents.
Lionel:
I am affirming the doctrine of the magisteriuim in CCC 1257, 846,845. I am also affirming Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7). These references support 'Feeneyism'. While NA 2, LG 16, LG 8 etc and parts of CCC 1257 are not explicit exceptions to Feeneyism. If this common irrationality is avoided then these magisterial documents support Feeneyism.
Since for centuries the traditional teaching was that every one needed to be a formal member of the Church for salvation.
It was Cardinal Cushing and the Jesuits who brought up the issue of 'exceptions'.Now the Catechism 1258-1260 says there are exceptions, substitutes, for the baptism of water.
How can these cases be exceptions( substututes) to every one needing to be a formal member of the Catholic Church for salvation? These cases do not exist in our reality on earth. So how can they be exceptions for every one needing to formally enter the Churchin Rome, for example, in 2014?
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the popes and saints had always meant formal entry into the Church.
If you say no, fine , then I would ask you to show me the exception, the person saved without formal entry into the Church.
James:
It carefully explains that the word “exception” refers to those who are saved but have not had formal membership in the Church as Catholics.
Lionel:
It usually infers it but does not directly use the word exception.
James:
They do not represent “exceptions” to “No salvation Outside the Church” ! The truth is that any non-Catholic who is saved is saved because of their imperfect communion with the Catholic Church (being linked or joined to the Church by faith and baptism and cooperating with graces given through the Church).
Lionel:
This is accepted.If you just leave at this- it is acceptable.However when they assume that these cases are visible ( they would have to be visible to be exceptions) and imply that they are exceptions to all needing to be formal members of the Curch, this becomes irrational and non traditional.
James:
Similarly, the unbaptized who are also called to salvation, are related to the Church, can correspond with the graces that come to them unknowingly through the Church, and can be saved. The point to be stressed is that the cooperation by non-Catholics and non-Christians with the graces that come to them through the Catholic Church means they are saved by the Catholic Church. In a mysterious sense such persons of good will are invisibly within the Church.
Lionel:
Yes. Fine, as long as you do not imply that these cases are exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church for salvation.Since you do not know any one who formally does not need to enter the Catholic Church.
Also theologically the baptism of water and being saved in invincible ignorance can be followed by the baptism of water in the manner known only to God.
So implicit for us baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance is acceptable.One can affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( according to Fr.Leonard Feeney9 along with hypothtical, implicit for us baptism of desire etc.
James:
The traditional axiom thus holds: there is no Salvation Outside the Church. “Outside the Church” was never understood as confined to those with formal membership as Catholics –
Lionel:
Yes it was understood to mean formal entry. No pope or Council has mentioned any exceptions or names the baptism of desire etc as an exception.This has come from Cardinal Cushing.
James:
since “All men are called to Catholic Unity”
Lionel:
Yes in potential.In potential salvation is open to all. In reality they need to convert into the Church for salvation.(Dominus Iesus 20, CCC 1257,846, Vatican Council II ( Ad Gentes 7) etc)
James:
and “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience- those too may achieve eternal salvation.”
Lionel:
They are known only to God and so are not visible exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church.
Lionel:
You are not implying that these cases refer to those who do not need the baptism of water for salvation in 2014?
-Lionel Andrades
1
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment