Thursday, November 27, 2014

If the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma in the external forum then you are implying that it is visible and known to us

 Steve Speray:
NEVER SAID OR IMPLIED that baptism of desire is visible and known to us and that Church documents had mentioned this.
Lionel:
If the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma in the external forum then you are implying that it is visible and known to us.
If you say that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 or some other documents considers the baptism of desire etc as an exception to the literal and traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney, then again, you imply that these cases are visible and known to you. If they were not known to you in personal cases how could they be exceptions?
Steve:
What I said was that those quotes contradict your statement ""for salvation, all need to be a member of the Church in the external forum."
Lionel:
So those quotes were of hypothetical cases. How could they be exceptions in the external forum in your parish or diocese for all to convert into the Church with no exceptions, for salvation ? All need to be a member of the Catholic Church in the external forum since you personally do not know any one who will be saved without the baptism of water. You cannot meet a Hindu, Buddhist, Jew or Muslim who will be saved outside the Church i.e without 'faith and baptism'(AG 7).

Steve:
The quotes imply: FOR SALVATION, ALL NEED TO BE A MEMBER OF THE CHURCH AT LEAST IN THE INTERNAL FORUM" but you deny it and say that it must be in the external forum.
Lionel:
Steve, the issue is the dogma. Are there any exceptions ? Is the baptism of desire or being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
If someone is saved or not saved in the internal forum what has it to do with the dogma? Suppose there were 100 persons saved this year in the internal forum with the baptism of desire ? So what? You would not know of them.So what has the baptism of desire to do with extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
This was the mistake of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. This is Cushingism. It is also with Cushingism that you are interpreting Vatican Council II and then rejecting the Council. The same mistake is being made by the CMRI and MHFM.
The fault is not with Vatican Council II -unless, you are using Cushingism.

 Steve:
I stand by my statements.

Baptism of Desire and Blood are doctrines of the Church.
 
Lionel:
Yes, agreed.
However baptism of desire and blood can also be followed by the baptism of water if God wants it.
You have not answered so many questions in my last blog post, which I sent you?
-Lionel Andrades
 
 

No comments: