________________________________________
Trady-pooh :
What do you mean when you say: "I accept them [invincible ignorance and baptism by desire] as a possibility. I deny that they are exceptions to the dogma." ???
Lionel:
I accept that with certain conditions a person could be saved with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance followed by the baptism of water.I accept this in faith. In theory it is possible. It is hypothetical.
To be an exception, these cases would have to be objective,explicit, seen and known.
Hypothethical cases cannot be objective, seen in the flesh exceptions, to all needing the baptism of water for salvation in the present times.
_______________________
Do you mean that God may allow the salvation of someone without water baptism even though the dogma of the necessity of water baptism stands? If not, how should a reader make sense of your statement? It seems irrational.
Lionel:
Theogically I accept that a person can be saved with the baptism of desire followed by the baptism of water in a manner known only to God.
God could send a preacher to him and have him baptised as St. Thomas Aquinas taught.
Or God could send the person back to earth only to be baptised with water, as was the experience of St.Francis Xavier and other saints.
Either way, with or without the baptism of water,these cases are invisible for us in 2014. So they are not exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
__________________________
The other thing that makes no sense is your appeal to "sight"; that is, your rejection of hypothetical cases because you cannot "see" them.
Lionel:
The dogma refers to all being formal members of the Church. Vatican Council II refers to all needing 'faith and baptism' for salvation(AG 7). One can only be a formal member of the Church in the present times.One can receive the baptism of water in only the present times.
So if there was an exception it would have to be there in the present times. I would have to know him and see him.
__________________________
Do you "see" St. Joseph in heaven? Elijah?
Lionel:
After the Resurrection of Jesus everyone needs the baptism of water for salvation. This is what God the Father chose.
So if there was an exception to this teaching in 2014, the case would have to be known.
We do not know of any such exception.
_________________________
What sort of criterion is "sight"? It's not magisterial, so far as I can see, and it surely ain't biblical.
Lionel:
The pre-1949 magisterium said everyone needs the baptism of water for salvation.
For me there is no one in 'sight' who is an exception to this biblical teaching(John 3:5, Mk.16:16).-Lionel Andrades
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6312447&postID=3181870308829741462&page=1&token=1419411026857
What do you mean when you say: "I accept them [invincible ignorance and baptism by desire] as a possibility. I deny that they are exceptions to the dogma." ???
Lionel:
I accept that with certain conditions a person could be saved with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance followed by the baptism of water.I accept this in faith. In theory it is possible. It is hypothetical.
To be an exception, these cases would have to be objective,explicit, seen and known.
Hypothethical cases cannot be objective, seen in the flesh exceptions, to all needing the baptism of water for salvation in the present times.
_______________________
Do you mean that God may allow the salvation of someone without water baptism even though the dogma of the necessity of water baptism stands? If not, how should a reader make sense of your statement? It seems irrational.
Lionel:
Theogically I accept that a person can be saved with the baptism of desire followed by the baptism of water in a manner known only to God.
God could send a preacher to him and have him baptised as St. Thomas Aquinas taught.
Or God could send the person back to earth only to be baptised with water, as was the experience of St.Francis Xavier and other saints.
Either way, with or without the baptism of water,these cases are invisible for us in 2014. So they are not exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
__________________________
The other thing that makes no sense is your appeal to "sight"; that is, your rejection of hypothetical cases because you cannot "see" them.
Lionel:
The dogma refers to all being formal members of the Church. Vatican Council II refers to all needing 'faith and baptism' for salvation(AG 7). One can only be a formal member of the Church in the present times.One can receive the baptism of water in only the present times.
So if there was an exception it would have to be there in the present times. I would have to know him and see him.
__________________________
Do you "see" St. Joseph in heaven? Elijah?
Lionel:
After the Resurrection of Jesus everyone needs the baptism of water for salvation. This is what God the Father chose.
So if there was an exception to this teaching in 2014, the case would have to be known.
We do not know of any such exception.
_________________________
What sort of criterion is "sight"? It's not magisterial, so far as I can see, and it surely ain't biblical.
Lionel:
The pre-1949 magisterium said everyone needs the baptism of water for salvation.
For me there is no one in 'sight' who is an exception to this biblical teaching(John 3:5, Mk.16:16).-Lionel Andrades
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6312447&postID=3181870308829741462&page=1&token=1419411026857
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment