You have no magisterial document (except the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which is contradictory and without precedent) which says there are known exceptions to the dogma

Your theology is not traditional.

Lionel:

I am saying all need to be formal members of the Catholic Church for salvation. This was the teaching of the Church for centuries.No Church Council, pope or saint said that the baptism of desire was an exception to the dogma. It was a possibility followed with the baptism of water but it was not an exception. This is Cushingism which you are using. It comes to us from Boston in the 1940's. It is irrational since you cannot see or know any exception to the dogma. You cannot see or know the difference between necessity of means or precept .Also no Church document before 1949 suggests we can see the dead who are now saved in Heaven with the baptism of desire etc who are visible exceptions to the the dogma, the Syllabus of Errors etc.It is based on this irrationality that you have built your theology.

_________________________________________

You still haven't understood my position.

You're so confused that's it's sad.

Nobody supports you except in your mind.

Lionel:

I quoted you an Archbishop who said that the baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma. He was clear that we do not know any such case in the present time. The Archbishop was not saying anything extraordinary. This is common sense. We cannot see the dead on earth.

Then I quoted you the Dean of Theology at the University of St. Anselm, Rome saying the same thing.

There are many other priests in Rome who have supported what I have said.

______________________________________

There is no dogma that states that baptism is the necessity of means for salvation. Necessity of precept as the law of the Church teaches.

Lionel:

Necesity of means and precept is an invention of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. It is dejure, subjective, hypothetical for us humans. Only God can judge the diffeence.It has nothing to do with extra ecclesiam nulla salus as Fr.Leonard Feeney interpreted it.You've fallen for the liberal ruse from Boston.

______________________________________

Canon 737 declares, “Baptism, the gateway and foundation of the Sacraments, actually or at least in desire is necessary for all for salvation….”

Lionel:

Yes the baptism of water is the gateway and foundation of the Sacraments actually and there are no defacto exceptions in 2014. The baptism of desire , actually, is irrelevant. Since it cannot be administered or known. What is hypothetical cannot be a known exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.

One cannot say that 'God is not limited to the Sacraments'(CCC 1257). Since the Syllabus of Errors, the dogma on exclusive salvation and Vatican Council II (AG 7) tells us that God is limited to the Sacraments for salvation. CCC 1257 is confusing and wrong in a defacto sense. Actually, God has chosen to limit salvation to the Sacraments.

____________________________________________________________

THE LAW IS THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETATION OF TRENT WHICH SAYS THE SAME THING.

Lionel:

The Council of Trent no where says that the baptism of desire is visible to us or an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. You have not been able to provide any citation when I asked you to do so before.

So you have no magisterial document (except the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which is contradictory and without precedent) which says there are known exceptions to the dogma or that the baptism of desire refers to visible cases in the present times.Case finished!

You are not free to reject the law of the Church.

Lionel:

I generally accept the law of the Church but if a new doctrine is taught, which is irrational and heretical( and which you are using) I am free to reject it. I reject a new Gospel.

It is based on this irrationality (Vatican Council II with the premise contradicts Tradition) that you have chosen sedevacantism and rejected the pope.The popes seem unaware of the same error, which you are making in theology and doctrine.

I know you are sincere in this and mean well. You are not helped by so many Catholics who are unaware of the false premise used in the interpretation of the magisterial documents. Cardinal Ratzinger and later Pope Benedict XVII seemed unaware of it.

-Lionel Andrades

 

 

My theology is traditional.Yours is Cushingism. Yours is irrational.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/12/my-theology-is-traditionalyours-is.html