"There is no operative theological principle," you say.
Lionel:
How can I say that the dead are visible to us on earth and then build a theological or philosophical principle ?
How can I say that we humans know of cases of persons saved with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance and so every one does not need to enter the Church or everyone needs to enter the Church ?. This would be wrong at the onset.
So all I am saying is : the dead who are now in Heaven are not physically visible to us on earth.This is my proposition, my premise.Cases of the baptism of desire ( with or without the baptism of water) are not visible to us humans on earth.
If your premise is the opposite (the dead are visible) and then you create a theological principle ,it would be irrational.
______________________________________
Moreover, "Neither is there a standard philosophical principle I am drawing upon." Rather, you are drawing upon empirical observation without the benefit of sound philosophical or theological principles.
Lionel:
I cannot see the dead.Humans in general cannot see the dead. Even a non Catholic or a young boy would say that they could not see the dead who are now in Heaven. What has this to do with theology or philosophy?
______________________________________
You have proven my point, namely, that you have introduced an anomalous and inappropriate empiricism into theology. It will convince nobody with a solid theological formation. Moreover, it is bad theology.
Lionel:
Again I repeat it is not theology.
_________________________________________
I could use your methodology to prove that Lutheran Consubstantiation does not contradict the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation, since the presence of both bread and Christ in the Holy Eucharist is unknown to us, being empirically unverifiable.
Lionel:
This is not theology. I cannot see the dead in 2014 who are saved and are now in Heaven. Period.There are no cases of the baptism of desire physically visible to me on earth.
So when I am confronted with theology which says that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma it is irrational theology.It is based on an objective error.
In faith, as the Church teaches I would accept the baptism of desire (with the baptism of water). As a possibility known to God it is acceptable.But defacto. in real life I cannot see any such case. So it is irrelevant to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
We are not assuming that Transubstantiation is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Why do you mention it here?
In general, liberals and traditionalists and the Magisterium infer that the baptism of desire is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, this is their theology.
________________________________
(Then again, Christ's own presence there, without the substance of bread, is also empirically unverifiable. Hence the merit of Faith.) But supernatural mysteries cannot be so easily dealt with by the "scientific method."
Lionel:
In faith I accept the possibility of the baptism of desire followed with the baptism of water resulting in salvation and in faith I accept the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
I do not infer or claim that empirically either of the two are exceptions to the dogma.
____________________________
Of the two propositions you lay down, I would accept the second — though I would have to reword it in a more cogent way.
Lionel:
Thank you.
We agree here. Could you rephrase it and send it to me? Please let me know what is acceptable to you.
____________________________________________
But my accepting it does not take us very far in theology, since it relies on emp irical observation as its lynchpin.
Lionel:
Are you saying that you also cannot see the dead in Heaven now saved with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance followed with the baptism of water ? And so are you rejecting the common theology which suggests that these cases are empirical, objective exceptions to the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney ?
I know with theology you say that the baptism of desire is followed with the baptism of water and so it is not an exception to the dogma. I am not referring to this.
Are you saying that objectively we cannot see any case of the baptism of desire and so the baptism of desire cannot be an objective exception to traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus.?
_____________________________________
If you reduced it to a logical syllogism, your major premise would likely be atheological, as is your approach in general.
Lionel
Could you please answer the two questions?
I asked Mr. Louis Tofari,of the SSPX USA to please let me know the SSPX position on these two questions.
TWO QUESTIONS
1) Do we personally know the dead now saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc,can we see them, are they physically visible to us in 2014 ?
The SSPX simply follows the teachings of the Catholic Church, so we do
not have our own opinion on this matter.
http://catholicism.org/ad-rem-no-239.html
2) Since we do not know any of these cases, in real life, they are not visible for us, there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, or Ad Gentes 7 which states 'all' need 'faith and baptism' for salvation ?
Is the answer YES or NO?
The SSPX simply follows the teachings of the Catholic Church, so we do
not have our own opinion on this matter.
In response I e-mailed him:
Thank you for your response.
1.So you would say that the Church teaches and the SSPX accepts it that we personally know the dead now saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc, we can see them, they are physically visible to us in 2014. So we do know of these cases in real life , they are visible for us,they are known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and to Ad Gentes 7 which states 'all' need 'faith and baptism'for salvation.
2.You would also say that that the Church does not teach ,and the SSPX accepts this ,that we personallydo not know the dead now saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc, we cannot see them, they are physically not visible to us in 2014. So we do not know of these cases in real life , they are not visible for us,there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and to Ad Gentes 7 which states 'all' need 'faith and baptism'for salvation.
There is no answer from him yet . How would you answer the two questions?
-Lionel Andrades