I think your error lies in your separation of the letter of the law from its spirit, a common error of the Scriptural Pharisees.
Athanasius why cannot you respond to this paragraph?
For me the baptism of desire/ implicit desire refers to the hypothetical case of a person who is INVISIBLE physically on earth.Since he is invisible he cannot be an exception in 2014 to the traditional teaching of the Church which says all need faith and baptism for salvation and there are no exceptions.If he does not exist physically he cannot be an exception.
Why cannot you respond also to this paragraph. Are you afraid of something?
For you and the editor there are exceptions to the dogma on salvation.So you infer that there are VISIBLE cases on earth.Otherwise how could they be exceptions?
And why have you ignored this passage ? It is direct and clear.Are you afraid of something ?
of invincible ignorance, baptism of blood and baptism of desire, or do you not accept them?
I accept them only as physically INVISIBLE cases.I accept them as possibilities.I do not accept them as being physically VISIBLE on earth.
You know, the Church’s formal teaching is very easy for the faithful to understand.
If the faithful understand the baptism of desire as being known to us in special cases, of being VISIBLE to us, I reject this.For the faithful the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.For me this view is irrational
Are you afraid to say the magisteriium was not rational and was wrong?
I am obligated to refer to INVISIBLE and VISIBLE baptism of desire since most people imply ( whether they know it or not) that these hypothetical cases are VISIBLE to us in real life.
Trust the teaching of the authentic Magisterium
If the magisterium implies that these cases are VISIBLE to us then it is an objective error.
If they imply that the baptism of desire (implicit for us) is an exception to the extra ecclesiam nulla salus then the magisterium has made a factual error.It is common knowledge that we cannot see the dead. This is nor theology or a personal opinion.
Finally you have not answered these questions.
I have tried to define my terms.
Basically I would ask you is the baptism of desire referring to cases physically visible to you on earth ?
If these cases are implicit for us and known only to God can they be inferred as being explicit exceptions to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus e.g Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence?
Athanasius:In actual fact there are no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus since those who go to heaven by invincible ignorance, baptism of blood or baptism of desire, are implicitly part of the Mystical Body of Christ, His Holy Catholic Church, in spirit. That they were, or are, deprived on earth of either the knowledge or time to confirm that union by formal baptism with water or actual reception into the Church in the material sense does not detract from their good will and their dying without unrepented objective mortal sin on their souls.
So are you saying that the baptism of desire ( implicit/invisible for us) is a possibility of salvation but there are no VISIBLE cases and so there are no known exceptions in 2014 to all needing faith and baptism in the Catholic Church for salvation?
You have not defined your terms, so there is confusion here.
The argument, then, about visible and invisible baptism of desire is false.
You have not addressed the issue of the case of the baptism of desire, of someone being saved with the baptism of desire , being physically VISIBLE or INVISIBLE on earth. This is a rational question ?
Some cases are known to us from Sacred Scripture, such as the Old Testament patriarchs and prophets, the Good Thief on Calvary and the martyred Catechumens of the early Church. These are all visible examples of baptism of desire and/or blood. Others are unknown to us but are known to God.
How is the Good Thief on the Cross, the patriarchs and prophets VISIBLE to you ? They are not VISIBLE on earth to me.
You have not defined your terms.
You have not made the distinction between implicit and explicit for us baptism of desire, invisible and visible for us baptism of desire.
Only two things are important for us to remember in this matter. The first is that the mercy of God excludes the possibility of Hell for all who die in invincible ignorance or with a desire for baptism who have kept the law written in the hearts of all men and who have no objective mortal sin on their souls. The other is that this doctrine cannot and must not be extended to become the heresy of ‘Universal Salvation,’ as some of today’s liberals would like to see.
Yes I agree with you but this is not the subject being discussed.
It is, as I said before, a very easy doctrine to understand, so stop making a rod for your own back by excessive introspection
You have not answered my questions, for whatever reasons.
You and the editor, are affirming there being exceptions, physically VISIBLE EXCEPTIONS, to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is irrational, non traditional and heretical. It is heresy related to the defined dogma and the Nicene Creed. Heresy is sin.This also happens to be the general, common interpretation of the Letter of the Holy Office and Vatican Council II.- Lionel Andrades
Note: Athanasius had responded to this link: