I affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus as you do. I affirm Vatican Council II without the false premise. I affirm implicit for us baptism of desire and I am not a sedevacantist. Things couldnt be better.
I have received an e-mail from the MHFM continuing our dialogue.Here it is.
Wrong. That's modernism. You hold that dogmas are preceptive norms for acting, but not norms for believing. That's your error (and heresy, actually).
I hold dogmas are norms for believing and acting. Like you, I affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. There are no exceptions for me dejure or defacto, in theory or practise.
Unlike you I affirm implicit for baptism of desire. I accept it in faith, in theory. In fact (de facto, known to us) there are no cases.This is the reality of the baptism of desire. You instead assume there is explicit for us baptism of desire,visible in the flesh. You imply that these cases of the dead are physically visible to us on earth and then you create a theology for the rejection of the baptism of desire.
So we both affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus but you do not affirm implicit for us baptism of desire.
I accept Vatican Council II without the premise of the dead in Heaven being visible exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
You reject Vatican Council II assuming there are explicit, visible exceptions mentioned in the Council.
I accept implicit for us baptism of desire.
You reject the baptism of desire, since it is explicit for you.
I accept the popes. You are a sedevacantist.
You are irrational.Since we cannot see the deceased.
You are also heretical according to your own standards.
You have still not addressed the issue of the non physical baptism of desire. Perhaps you do not understand what I am saying.So we can make allowances for this.I have cited an American apologist and Catholic priests in Rome supporting me and you overlook what I have said.You still talk in terms of theology when I am referring to physical cases on earth.
Let us explain it for you: when the Church proclaims that all who die as pagans, etc. go to Hell, that's not only what we preach, it's also what we must believe. It is also what holds true in God's sight. Got it.
Numerous times on my blog and in correspondence with you I have said this same thing.
That means that it would be heretical to assert, as you do, that God could perhaps invisibly make exceptions that are not known to us or mentioned in the dogma.
I am glad you have mentioned this point.
I believe that all who go to Heaven are Catholics. They are there with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water and without mortal sin on their soul. I have mentioned this on my blog.I think we agree here.
If a soul goes to Heaven with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water I believe God will send that person back to earth to be baptised with water. This has been the experience of saints including St.Francis of Xavier. I have mentioned this on my blog.
So there are no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Theoretically,de jure there are no exceptions.
Secondly, de facto we do not know of any case in 2014 saved without Catholic Faith and the baptism of water. So there are no defacto exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So in theory, hypothethically and in fact, in the present times there are no exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
So all salvation mentioned in Vatican Council II (imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3), elements of sanctification and truth (LG 8) etc are not implicit or explicit exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is what I believe.
You do not make the distinction between implicit and explicit for us salvation. You assume that all salvation mentioned in Vatican Council II is explicit for us and so contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So you reject Vatican Council II.
Dogmas are truths fallen from Heaven. They are are perfect reflection of the reality in God's sight.
Here's where you heresy is condemned.
Pope Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #22:
“The dogmas which the Church professes as revealed are not truths fallen from heaven, but they are a kind of interpretation of religious facts, which the human mind by a laborious effort prepared for itself.”- Condemned[xix]
Pope Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #54:
“The dogmas, the sacraments, the hierarchy, as far as pertains both to the notion and to the reality, are nothing but interpretations and the evolution of Christian intelligence, which have increased and perfected the little germ latent in the Gospel.”- Condemned[xx]
Non applicable to me.
Dogmas of the faith, like Outside the Church There is No Salvation, are truths fallen from heaven.
This refutes all of your statements about 'objective, subjective', etc. We hope you see the heresy in which you have fallen and come out of it, but you are very dishonest. These points address and refute the argument you constantly make on this issue: that there are exceptions known to God, on baptism, salvation, etc.,
There are possibilities but not exceptions. Possibilities are dejure.Possibilities are theoretical. Exceptions are de facto, known cases.
If there was a case of the baptism of desire known to God it would not be an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It would not be an exception de jure or de facto. Since as I have mentioned above 1) God would send the person to be baptised with water ( St.Thomas Aquinas, St.Francis Xavier etc) and 2) defacto this case would not be known to us on earth. So it would not be an exception to all needing to enter the Church with the baptism of water for salvation.
Even if someone says that there is someone there in Heaven without the baptism of water, it still would not be a visible, known exception to the dogma on salvation. So with or without the baptism of water , there can be no exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, since these cases are known only to God in Heaven .
that are not mentioned in the dogmatic proclamations - HERESY. You teach modernism, and you do it all the time.
I affirm Vatican Council II ( without the premise). You deny it. Is this heresy?
I affirm implicit for us baptism of desire. You deny it. Is this heresy?
I accept the pope. You are a sedevacantist. Is this heresy?
August 9, 2014
Dialogue with the MHFM continued after a pause
blogspot.it/2014/08/dialogue- with-mhfm-continued-after- pause.html
August 9, 2014
Dialogue with the MHFM continued after a pause