Here is the on going discussion with Steven Speray. Comments today (Nov.25,2014) are in blue.See the link below 1 for the discussion on the previous days.
STEVEN SPERAY:
Wrong. Every post-Trent pope taught it the way I stated.
Nov.24,2014
Lionel:
Please cite the Council of Trent where it says that implicit desire/ baptism of desire is :
1. Visible to us in particular cases in the present times.
2. Are known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
3:Also quote any pope before Trent who has said the same (1 & 2)
They only refer to the implicit desire and being saved in invincible ignorance. They do not say that these cases are visible to us or an exception to the dogma. This was the wrong inference made by the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. There was no precedent for their irrationality.
________________________________________
Nov.25,2014.
Lionel:
There is no answer to the above questions. Steve cannot cite any pope or church document.
This is a common mistake in the Catholic Church. Catholics infer that the baptism of desire is visible for us and that this is the teaching in Church documents.
__________________________________________
Lionel:
Yes. Baptised with water in the external forum.
Baptised with water as a formal member of the Church.
Defacto needing the baptism of water.
In the external forum, as a formal member, defacto we do not know any one saved with the baptism of desire, for it to relevant or an exception to the dogma.
SPERAY: This is where you're having problems. You're right up till you say exception to the dogma. The dogma says we must be baptized to be formal members of the Church. The dogma doesn't say that we must be baptized to be saved under all conditions. Two different issues. Salvation doesn't depend on our formal membership under all conditions. The Catechism of Trent was clear about that.
Lionel:
By formal membership in the Church I am referring to the baptism of water. The baptism of water given to adults with Catholic Faith in the Catholic Church refers to formal entry into the Church. Vatican Council II calls it 'faith and baptism'(AG 7).
Salvation in the external forum does not depend on 'faith and baptism'?
______________________________________________________
We do not know any one 'incorporated into the Church' without Catholic Faith and the baptism of water who is an exception to the traditional teaching on salvation.
SPERAY: Don't need to either. The Church says that's it possible under BOD, and that's it has happened under the baptism of blood.
Lionel:
'Don't need to either?'.If we do not know anyone as such in 2014 then how can there be an exception to the dogma in the external forum?. 'Incorporated into the Church' is subjective and known only to God. It is not relevant to all needing the baptism of water and Catholic faith in the external forum.
In the external forum I can see someone receiving the baptism of water. It can be repeated before me by the priest. I also can check if someone knows the Catholic Faith. I can ask. It can be recited.So it is not subjective.
'The Church says that's it possible '. Yes it is possible to be saved with the baptism of desire.The Church and reason do not tell us that we know of any case in the present times. So if someone is invisible ( and saved with the baptism of desire) he cannot be an exception to all needing to convert into the Church in the present times.
Also it is possible that the person saved with the baptism of desire, a hypothethical case for us, could have also received the baptism of water. We would not know but Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation. The dogma also says all need the baptism of water for salvation.
_______________________________________________________
We do not know any one who 'subsists it' in the Church in 2014 who is an exception to all needing to be a member of the Church in the external forum.
SPERAY: A different issue altogether, but you didn't post all my comments last time.
Lionel:
Steve you said not to e-mail you again on that subject if I did not agree.
For me, the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church. For me this is the meaning of Lumen Gentium 8 and the document issued by Pope Benedict XVI.
Also subsist it refers to the internal forum.So it is not relevant to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
____________________________________________
Steve:
Vat2 used subsists concerning the Church of Christ. So you're now arguing against Vat2 that you're defending. Thank you. Vat2 is heretical on subsists clause.
Lionel:
Lionel:
I am defending a Vatican Council II in which subsist it belongs to the internal forum. There is no external forum with reference to LG 8.So Vatican Council II (LG 8) here does not contradict the dogma.
For you there is a contradiction.Since LG 8 refers to the external forum.What is hypothetical and subjective (for me) is considered visible and objective (by you).
______________________________________________________
Steven:
That's a different argument. BE CLEAR ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE ARGUING. Is it how to understand in the external forum how becomes a member of the Church formally? OR Is it how a person can possibly be saved in the internal forum? TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES.
Lionel:
No there is only issue. The external forum. The internal forum is known only to God. This was the mistake of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. The Letter mixes up invisible and visible, dejure and defacto,subjective and objective.
SPERAY: The internal form is known only to God when concerning subjectivity, but not objectivity. Again, you do not understand the different nuances and how they are being applied.
Lionel:
For there to be an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( all adults need the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, with Catholic Faith, for salvation) this exception must be visible and known, in the external forum, to be an exception.
We cannot say that a hypothetical case, a possibility, is visible in the external forum for example,in the parish or diocese in which you live. So if someone is saved without the baptism of water, this year, where you live, then this would be an objective case.
So there are no objective exceptions where you live, to the dogmatic teaching.You do not know of any exception?
So every one needs the baptism of water given to adults with Catholic Faith, this year, in your parish and diocese and there are no exceptions. Since you cannot see or meet someone there saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance or imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3) etc.You would not also know if there was such a case of a person saved (without the baptism of water) over the last 100 years.
I use the words objective and subjective, visible and invisible only when it is remarked that there are exceptions to the dogma.I mention it only when it is implied that the case is visible in real life, even though the reference is to someone now in Heaven and invisible for us.
_________________________________________________
Those who are saved with the baptism of desire or blood can be saved with the baptism of water and God will provide the means.
Steven:
God can provide the means without water according to every pope after Trent.
Lionel:
You do not know of any such case.
SPERAY: I don't have to. Objectivity is the issue and you're trying to apply objective truths to subjective realities. You've never seen the Holy Ghost, but according to your arguments, you would have to say He is a theoretical Person, but you know that's stupid. So stop arguing in this fashion.
Lionel:
'I don't have to'. You would have to when you imply that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma. You infer that the case is known and visble to us .Otherwise how could it be an exception if it was not objective for you?
'Objectivity is the issue and you're trying to apply objective truths to subjective realities. '
Subjective realities? Do you know of a possibility ( baptism of desire) which is a reality in the present times?
I can accept for example, that St.Francis of Assisi is a saint even though I have not physically seen him in heaven. It is a subjective truth for me.If I claimed I could see him on earth then I would be saying that he is objective for me on earth.
You are saying subjective baptism of desire ,accepted subjectively as a possibility, is visible objectively and so is an exception to someone being saved without the baptism of water in the present times.
__________________________________________________
Steve:
You've never seen the Holy Ghost, but according to your arguments, you would have to say He is a theoretical Person, but you know that's stupid.
So stop arguing in this fashion.
Lionel:
I accept the Holy Ghost in faith. Subjectively only.Physically with my eyes I have not seen the Holy Ghost. I have not 'met' the Holy Ghost.
Similarly I accept the baptism of desire subjectively, theoretically - I do not imply that I can physically see these cases. I do not say that the baptism of desire is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
____________________________________________________
Neither did the popes. If this is your theoretical position, I don't have a problem with it.
Since it refers to an invisible case. Invisible cases are not defacto exceptions to the dogma in the present times.
SPERAY: There are no exceptions to the dogma anyway. That's your problem. The Dogma doesn't say that baptism is the necessity of means for salvation, but only to become a formal member of the Church in the external forum. You're confusing the two issues.
Lionel:
'There are no exceptions to the dogma anyway.?
Are you saying that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance(LG 16) are not exceptions to the dogma?
My 'theoretical' position would be that the baptism of water must follow. This would be the teaching of the dogma on salvation and Vatican Council II (AG 7).
SPERAY: I've written a whole book on the issue. As for VAt2, you're not understanding what it's saying. The conciliar popes and CDF even explain it and you still don't understand it.
Lionel:
The conciliar popes and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF),Vatican assume that the baptism of desire and other references to salvation in Vatican Council II, are visble and known to us in the present times. So for them Vatican Council II emerges as a break with Tradition.This error , approved by Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J, the Secretary of the CDF, can be read
online in two theological papers of the International Theological Commission. Cardinal Gerhard Muller and Archbishop Augustine Di Noia also made this error in interviews given to the National Catholic Reporter. They were questioned on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The fault is with their irrational inference.They assume hypothetical cases are defacto known. They mix up subjective references with objective realities in the present times.
I do not confuse what is invisible as being visible. So LG 16,LG 8 etc do not contradict the Syllabus of Errors on other religions and Christian communities. Vatican Council II (without the irrational inference) is in line with the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the Church Councils.
-Lionel Andrades
____________________________________________
1.
November 24, 2014
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment