nd since the new ecumenism seems to seek only fraternal cooperation, rather than necessary conversion, it seems positively diabolical to us.
Lionel:Since all Protestants, Orthodox Christians, Pentecostals etc need Catholic Faith for salvation (AG 7, Cantate Dominion, Council of Florence etc) and we do no know of a single exception in 2014?
_______________________________________
If that lack of concern is based on presumed BOD, then we can readily understand your high degree of concern that this matter be clarified and any misunderstandings be rectified, in order to reinstate the sense of urgency needed- to proselytize as the missionaries did for centuries–and end this “silence” from the Church.
Lionel:
So we proclaim the Gospel since all non Catholics are on the way to Hell in 2014 ?
__________________________________
But we have no idea why you are HERE asking US to explain to you or account for, the positions of other posters, who may easily have far greater knowledge about the issues involved than we do, and/or other information at their disposal which causes them to question your statements and withhold their full agreement.
Lionel: Since we have to proclaim the Gospel knowing that all in 2014 are on the way to Hell without ‘faith and baptism’ and there are no known exceptions.
___
The controversy you’ve raised concerning the SSPX and the “letter of 1949, is one example of an area with which we are not at all familiar.
Lionel:
You are now familiar that the baptism of desire is an acceptable doctrine but it is not known and visible in personal cases.
You are also familiar that the baptism of desire is a hypothetical case.
We agree that a hypothetical case cannot be a known exception to the dogma in 2014.
This is all commonsense. It is common knowledge.
So we cannot create a theology and call it Feeneyism or what ever and say:-
1.The baptism of desire is an acceptable doctrine but it is known and visible in personal cases.
2.The baptism of desire is not a hypothetical case but it is defacto, objectively known and visible to us in personal cases.
3. A hypothetical case can be a known exception to the dogma in 2014.
This would all be contrary to reason and we cannot create a theology based on this irrationality?
__________________________________________
We know semantics are very important, but don’t know what the writers or readers of that letter took the word “exception” to mean or to what they applied it.
Lionel:
In the two links I have cited from the SSPX (USA) website the SSPX priests are criticizing Fr.Leonard Feeney, another traditionalist priest, for not assuming that the baptism of desire and being saved with the baptism of blood or in invincible ignorance – are known to us in the present times ( not hypothetical).
They also criticizeg him for not assuming that visible for us baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma.
Neither are they criticizing the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 for this irrationality.
__________________________________________
If, on the one hand, by using the word “exception” they only meant that BOD is an “unusual” way of being saved, i.e. not the ordinary, visible way, then that means something entirely different than the idea that the way it is accomplished by God, is an “exception” to the Dogma of no salvation outside the Church, i.e. that they are in fact, NOT saved THROUGH His Church, but by some imaginary Divine intervention outside of it. (That itself seems silly to us-maybe due to more of our theological ignorance?) Sorry, don’t think we can help here.
Lionel:
The dogma says all need to enter the Church. For an adult one can only enter the Church with ‘faith and baptism’.So how can there be an exception ?
How can there be an ‘extra ordinary way’?
How can someone go to Heaven without the baptism of water ?
This is a de fide teaching of the Church.
____________________________________
Anyway the bottom line is that we agree that there are no defacto, visible to us, exceptions to the dogma ? -Lionel Andrades