The conversation with Brother Andre Marie MICM was like having to say often look your nose is there before you just acknowledge it and please don't get into theology and philosophy.Just be in the present moment and acknowledge that your nose is there.Are you aware of it?
I often felt like saying please come back to our awareness of reality and don't see it with theology.Your theology is based on a non-reality.
At one point he recognised that there are no known exceptions to the dogma in our reality, we cannot see any one with the baptism of desire, but then again he went into a theology-mode.-L.A
From the website Catholicism.org. Comments are from the article Revolutionary Doctrines on the Family by Brother Andre Marie. October 22,2014
17. In considering the principle of gradualness in the divine salvific plan, one asks what possibilities are given to married couples who experience the failure of their marriage, or rather how it is possible to offer them Christ’s help through the ministry of the Church. In this respect, a significant hermeneutic key comes from the teaching of Vatican Council II, which, while it affirms that“although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure … these elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward Catholic unity” (Lumen Gentium, 8).
Lionel:
For the St.Benedict Center N.H 'elements of sanctification and truth'(LG 8) are known to them in real life and so these cases are exceptions, in Vatican Council II, for them, and so they reject Vatican Council II.
For the St.Benedict Center N.H 'elements of sanctification and truth'(LG 8) are known to them in real life and so these cases are exceptions, in Vatican Council II, for them, and so they reject Vatican Council II.
This is true also for the SSPX and other traditionalists.
So Cardinal Kaspar and the liberals have no opposition when they say that LG 8 refer to known cases saved outside the Church. The St. Benedict Center and other traditionalists agree with him.In the sense that they infer that these cases are visible, defacto known and not just possibilities known to God.
The traditionalists have always said that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The SSPX infer that these cases are visible and accept them while the St. Benedict Centers also infer that these cases are visible and known in the present times, and exist, followed by the baptism of water.
The SSPX infer that these cases are visible and accept them while the St. Benedict Centers also infer that these cases are visible and known in the present times, and exist, followed by the baptism of water.
Never has Brother Andre Marie or corrected any one saying that the baptism of desire is not known and visible to us to be exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
20. Realizing the need, therefore, for spiritual discernment with regard to cohabitation, civil marriages and divorced and remarried persons, it is the task of the Church to recognize those seeds of the Word that have spread beyond its visible and sacramental boundaries.
Following the expansive gaze of Christ, whose light illuminates every man (cf. Jn 1,9; cf. Gaudium et Spes, 22), the Church turns respectfully to those who participate in her life in an incomplete and imperfect way, appreciating the positive values they contain rather than their limitations and shortcomings.
Lionel:
Never have the traditionalists said that those saved with the 'seeds of the Word' are not known-cases in the present times. So they cannot be exceptions or even relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Never have the traditionalists said that those saved with the 'seeds of the Word' are not known-cases in the present times. So they cannot be exceptions or even relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
If someone is saved with the baptism of desire with the baptism of water, so what, we do not know any case in the present times.We cannot meet any exception to the dogma as interpreted by Fr.Leonard Feeney.
So when Vatican Council II is rejected as being opposed to tradition and extra ecclesiam nulla salus does not the fault lie with the traditionalists. For them LG 8,LG 16,NA 2,UR 3 etc refer to visible in the flesh cases in the present times.
_____________________________________________
Why don't you just say that LumenGentium 16 or Lumen Gentium 8 refer to cases which are not known to us over the last 100 years.So LG 16 and LG 8 are not exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
Why doesn't the St.Benedict Center just say that in October 2014 we do not know any person saved with the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood and so there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Brother André Marie, M.I.C.M.
Thank you for your clarity.
OK: "In October 2014 we do not know any person saved with the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood and so there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus?"
We never held that there were any exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.- _________________________________________________
Yes with reference to the dogma there are no exceptions and your reasons are theological with which I agree.
But if you infer that LG 16 and LG 8 and Vatican Council II contradict the dogma then it would mean there are exceptions for you.These cases exist in your reality, otherwise how could they be exceptions?
__________________________________________________________
But if you infer that LG 16 and LG 8 and Vatican Council II contradict the dogma then it would mean there are exceptions for you.These cases exist in your reality, otherwise how could they be exceptions?
__________________________________________________________
Lionel:
I don't know what you mean by all that.
Is being saved in invincible ignorance an explicit exception to the dogma?
Does the baptism of desire ( with or without the baptism of water) conflict with the dogma since these cases are physically visible to us in 2014?
Is being saved in invincible ignorance an explicit exception to the dogma?
Does the baptism of desire ( with or without the baptism of water) conflict with the dogma since these cases are physically visible to us in 2014?
_______________________________________
Brother Andre Marie MICM:
I'm not sure what your reference to the "physically visible to us in 2014" means, since we cannot verify whether someone went to heaven by any of these means.
___________________________________________
Lionel Andrades
Brother Andre Marie I am not referring to theology. I agree with you there.
By physically visible I mean can we see someone saved with the baptism of desire physically on earth, to be an exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation in 2014.
Can we meet someone who is saved as such and who is also on earth, known and visible to us.?
I mean it in the literal sense and not theologically.- _______________________________________
I am asking an empirical , objective question.
For instance I could ask a Hindu, Buddhist or other non Catholic :"Do we humans in general see people on earth who are also in Heaven ? Can we see them with the physical eye ?
Or I could ask a young Catholic preparing for his First Holy Communion and unaware of the theological controversies in the Church after 1949: "Can you see with your eyes people on earth who are also in Heaven and have been saved with the baptism of desire followed by the baptism of water?"
Or I could ask you, " Can you see on earth with your physical eye former non Catholics, now saved in Heaven with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance followed by the baptism of water?"
Or to extend this thinking:"Can you physically see on earth, persons now saved with the 'seeds of the Word', (AG 11), imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3) , followed by the baptism of water?"
______________________________________________
Lionel Andrades
For instance I could ask a Hindu, Buddhist or other non Catholic :"Do we humans in general see people on earth who are also in Heaven ? Can we see them with the physical eye ?
Or I could ask a young Catholic preparing for his First Holy Communion and unaware of the theological controversies in the Church after 1949: "Can you see with your eyes people on earth who are also in Heaven and have been saved with the baptism of desire followed by the baptism of water?"
Or I could ask you, " Can you see on earth with your physical eye former non Catholics, now saved in Heaven with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance followed by the baptism of water?"
Or to extend this thinking:"Can you physically see on earth, persons now saved with the 'seeds of the Word', (AG 11), imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3) , followed by the baptism of water?"
______________________________________________
Lionel Andrades
I repeat I am not referring to theology or subjective experiences.
Can we meet someone who is saved as such and who is also on earth, known and visible to us.?
I mean it in the literal sense
_______________________________________________
Brother André Marie, M.I.C.M.
Can we meet someone who is saved as such and who is also on earth, known and visible to us.?
I mean it in the literal sense
_______________________________________________
Brother André Marie, M.I.C.M.
No.
(Lionel: Note. Here he agrees.
He agrees that literally we cannot see any such case on earth.)
_____________________________________________
So we agree that physically we cannot see anyone on earth saved as such.We do not personally know anyone saved in 2014 with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance. They are theoretical cases accepted in principle in only.
They cannot be considered to be physically visible, defacto cases known in the present times.
So when the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 refers to implicit desire and being saved in invincible ignorance it is referring to hypothethical cases. Someone invisible for us.
The Letter also implies that these hypothetical cases, are objective ( physically visible) exceptions to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus( all needing the baptism of water with no exceptions) ?
This is not rational.
How can invisible for cases be defacto, real exceptions to the literal and traditional interpretation of Fr. Leonard Feeney, the Church Councils, popes and saints?
_________________________________________________
They cannot be considered to be physically visible, defacto cases known in the present times.
So when the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 refers to implicit desire and being saved in invincible ignorance it is referring to hypothethical cases. Someone invisible for us.
The Letter also implies that these hypothetical cases, are objective ( physically visible) exceptions to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus( all needing the baptism of water with no exceptions) ?
This is not rational.
How can invisible for cases be defacto, real exceptions to the literal and traditional interpretation of Fr. Leonard Feeney, the Church Councils, popes and saints?
_________________________________________________
Brother André Marie, M.I.C.M.
I agree: It would be irrational to posit that we have verifiable cases of such speculative postulates in existence.- (Lionel: He still agrees that in our reality there is no known case of the baptism of desire etc)
- _____________________________________________
We agree that that the cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are not physically visible to us on earth.
We agree that those saved as such are hypothetical cases. They are not verifiable.They can only be speculative.
They are not known or seen in our reality and they can only be accepted in principle, in theory, in faith.
So every one in 2014, defacto, needs the baptism of water given to adults with Catholic Faith, for salvation and we do not know of any explicit exception. We do not know of any exception. Since hypothetical cases cannot be explicit exceptions.What does not exist in our reality is not an exception.
So one can affirm the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( all need to be formal members of the Catholic Church with no exceptions) and also affirm implicit for us baptism of desire and invisible for us being saved in invincible ignorance.
Since hypothetical baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are invisible for us they do not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction.
If they were visible and known they would be contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction.Explicit baptism of desire (without the baptism of water) would contradict all needing to enter the Church with no exception.
So one can affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, as it was interpreted over the centuries along with invisible for us baptism of desire etc , accepted in principle, as a possibility, but which is not an exception to the dogma.It does not have to be either /or since the baptism of desire is invisible for us, we cannot physically see these cases for them to be exceptions.
We agree that those saved as such are hypothetical cases. They are not verifiable.They can only be speculative.
They are not known or seen in our reality and they can only be accepted in principle, in theory, in faith.
So every one in 2014, defacto, needs the baptism of water given to adults with Catholic Faith, for salvation and we do not know of any explicit exception. We do not know of any exception. Since hypothetical cases cannot be explicit exceptions.What does not exist in our reality is not an exception.
So one can affirm the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( all need to be formal members of the Catholic Church with no exceptions) and also affirm implicit for us baptism of desire and invisible for us being saved in invincible ignorance.
Since hypothetical baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are invisible for us they do not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction.
If they were visible and known they would be contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction.Explicit baptism of desire (without the baptism of water) would contradict all needing to enter the Church with no exception.
So one can affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, as it was interpreted over the centuries along with invisible for us baptism of desire etc , accepted in principle, as a possibility, but which is not an exception to the dogma.It does not have to be either /or since the baptism of desire is invisible for us, we cannot physically see these cases for them to be exceptions.
_______________________________________________________
So we can accept the 'speculative postulates' of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, along with the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney, the Church Councils, popes and saints.They both are compatible.They are not contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction.?
(Since physically we cannot see any exception)
Hypothetical, non verifiable cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance ,can be accepted along with all needing to be formal members of the Catholic Church , with no known exceptions in 2014? We can have it both ways. It does not have to be accepting the baptism of desire or accepting the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney ?
(Since physically we cannot see any exception)
Hypothetical, non verifiable cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance ,can be accepted along with all needing to be formal members of the Catholic Church , with no known exceptions in 2014? We can have it both ways. It does not have to be accepting the baptism of desire or accepting the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney ?
________________________________________________________
(Here Brother Andre Marie moves into theology and departs from what he said earlier)
Lionel: I cannot grant that something I hold to be actually true in fact can, at the same time, be false in theory.
(He holds that we physically cannot see any one earth saved with the baptism of desire.There are no known cases for him.We agree. This is reality.
How does this become false in theory?)
I cannot hold that the Eucharist is actually the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus in fact, but theoretically might not be.
What I could grant, in any area of genuine theological opinion (not dogma per se), is that my theory could be wrong, but this is not the same as negating something "de facto" and affirming it "de jure," which you insist that I do.
(He is lost in theology and philosophy.Who is saying that the Eucharist is physically visible to us and suggesting it is some exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus?. In faith I know that God is present in the Eucharist in his Body, Soul and Divinity. )
______________________________________________________
(He holds that we physically cannot see any one earth saved with the baptism of desire.There are no known cases for him.We agree. This is reality.
How does this become false in theory?)
I cannot hold that the Eucharist is actually the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus in fact, but theoretically might not be.
What I could grant, in any area of genuine theological opinion (not dogma per se), is that my theory could be wrong, but this is not the same as negating something "de facto" and affirming it "de jure," which you insist that I do.
(He is lost in theology and philosophy.Who is saying that the Eucharist is physically visible to us and suggesting it is some exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus?. In faith I know that God is present in the Eucharist in his Body, Soul and Divinity. )
______________________________________________________
Lionel Andrades
We do not know any one saved with the baptism of desire followed by the baptism of water.We cannot see any one saved in Heaven.There are no cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance. And yet we have theologies of the baptism of desire with reference to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Similarly we do not know any one in 2014 saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) or seeds of the Word (AG 11). We cannot see these people in Heaven. Yet LG 16,AG 11, UR 3,NA 2, LG 8 etc are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? This is also the liberal position of Cardinal Walter Kaspar.In 2014 we do not know of any exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and yet Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma on salvation?
'elements of sanctification and truth'(LG 8) are not known to us in personal cases in 2014.Yet it is to an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to theologies? So Vatican Council II is rejected by the traditionalists.
Never has Brother Andre Marie or corrected any one saying that the baptism of desire is not known and visible to us to be an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.- _________________________________________________
Brother Andre Marie
What I could grant, in any area of genuine theological opinion (not dogma per se), is that my theory could be wrong, but this is not the same as negating something "de facto" and affirming it "de jure," which you insist that I do.
(Who is asking him to negate something defacto and affirm it de jure.
Defacto there are no cases known of the baptism of desire. We agree here.If there are no known cases, since we cannot know them physically,then in theory, in principle I would say that we cannot physically see cases of the baptism of desire. That's all.I would not create a theological or philosophical principle which implies we can see them.)
Lionel:
but this is not the same as negating something "de facto" and affirming it "de jure," which you insist that I do.
To what are you referring to?
_________________________________________
What I could grant, in any area of genuine theological opinion (not dogma per se), is that my theory could be wrong, but this is not the same as negating something "de facto" and affirming it "de jure," which you insist that I do.
(Who is asking him to negate something defacto and affirm it de jure.
Defacto there are no cases known of the baptism of desire. We agree here.If there are no known cases, since we cannot know them physically,then in theory, in principle I would say that we cannot physically see cases of the baptism of desire. That's all.I would not create a theological or philosophical principle which implies we can see them.)
Lionel:
but this is not the same as negating something "de facto" and affirming it "de jure," which you insist that I do.
To what are you referring to?
_________________________________________
- Brother Andre Marie says:
I cannot grant that something I hold to be actually true in fact can, at the same time, be false in theory.
Lionel:
I don't understand what you mean here.
We still agree that we physically cannot see a person on earth in 2014 saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance.
We also agree that being saved with the baptism of desire etc is something we can accept only in principle, in faith.We cannot accept it as being visible to us since only God knows who has been saved with the baptism of desire followed by the baptism of water.A person can be saved as such but we would not know who he is.
So whatever one's theological position on the baptism of desire, finally, we have to agree that we cannot know or meet these cases-saved, on earth.
So in theory we accept the baptism of desire - and in fact we know that we cannot know such a case now saved.In fact ( de facto) we do not know any one saved with the baptism of desire this year.
So the baptism of desire is not a defacto exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus?
-Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment