So many times Jeff Mirus on Catholic Culture has criticicized the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus citing Vatican Council II . Brother Andre Marie MICM and Mr.Brian Kelly have defended the dogma well, asking how can an infallible teaching be over ruled by the Council.
However they have never asked Jeff Mirus to demonstrate how does Vatican Councl II contradict the dogma?
No where does Vatican Council II contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus,if they are not using Cushingism. Without an irrational premise LG 16,LG 8,UR 3,NA 2 etc do not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Brother Andre Marie and Brian Kelly interpret Vatican Council II also with the irrational premise-just like Jeff Mirus. So they could not see his error. They assumed that Jeff Mirus was correct .The Council really contradicted the dogma for them.
They did not tell Mirus that there are no known exceptions in 2013-2014, of non Catholics saved, without the baptism of water.
Those who have been saved in invincible ignorance(LG 16), elements of sanctification and truth(LG 8), etc are for us hypothetical cases. They are so also for Jeff Mirus.So these cases, hypothetically, could also have been saved , with the baptism of water, if God chose it.
Vatican Councl II does not exclude someone being saved with the seeds of the word (AG 11) and with the baptism of water.
Vatican Council II (AG 7) tells us that 'all' who are saved are saved with 'faith and baptism'. This is also the teaching of the dogma.
So tell Mirus 1) being saved in incivicble ignorance (LG 16) can also include the baptism of water and so LG 16 would not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
2) If is someone was saved without the baptism of water(LG 16) it is a hypothetical case and so would not contradict the dogma in 2014-2015.
Vatican Council II (AG 7) tells us that 'all' who are saved are saved with 'faith and baptism'. This is also the teaching of the dogma.
So tell Mirus 1) being saved in incivicble ignorance (LG 16) can also include the baptism of water and so LG 16 would not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
2) If is someone was saved without the baptism of water(LG 16) it is a hypothetical case and so would not contradict the dogma in 2014-2015.
Brother Andre Marie has said on the Catholicism website that there are no known cases of the baptism of desire, we cannot physically see any one earth as such . No such case exist.1
I asked him then :
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.?.
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 ? 1
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 ? 1
He did not agree here.
Why cannot the baptism of desire be compatible with extra ecclesiam nulla salus for him ? It does not have to be an either / or case.
He says 'Lionel: I cannot grant that something I hold to be actually true in fact can, at the same time, be false in theory...
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.
I am not insisting he do that. I will explain the defacto-dejure concept in another post)
However it does show that his image of the baptism of desire,he has is one of being visible to us. This is the image he has in his mind. Since only if it was 'visible' it would be an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.If it was invisible,as he agreed earlier on the website , then the baptism of desire would be compatible with the dogma and it would not be an either-or case.It would not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction.
However it does show that his image of the baptism of desire,he has is one of being visible to us. This is the image he has in his mind. Since only if it was 'visible' it would be an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.If it was invisible,as he agreed earlier on the website , then the baptism of desire would be compatible with the dogma and it would not be an either-or case.It would not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction.
-Lionel Andrades
1
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
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/12/at-one-point-he-recognised-that-there.html
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment