Wednesday, December 24, 2014

Cardinal hints Medjugorje will be named a shrine

The Medjugorje Message


Cardinal Puljic claims Medjugorje is the largest confessional in Europe

 

In a pre-Christmas interview with the Anadolija news agency, Cardinal Vinko Puljic has claimed Medjugorje is the largest confessional in Europe and added that this factor is the strongest witness at Medjugorje, and not the apparitions or messages.



“I see that the faithful are coming to Medjugorje and going to confession, making penance, and returning home changed. This place is the largest confessional in Europe. This is perhaps the strongest sign in Medjugore, not an apapriton, not a message, but the creed professed and restored,” said Cardinal Puljic who served on the Medjugorje Commission which completed its investigation in January 2014.

Although claiming not to prejudge any decision by the Holy Father it appears with his comment that the cardinal is anticipating Medjugorje will be recognised by the Holy See as an “official place of worship” while the question of the apparitions and the messages will be left to another time.

Cardinal Puljic also expressed his surprise that no decision was made this year and hinted that he expected the Holy Father’s announcement in the near future.

Answering questions about a possible visit of Pope Francis to Bosnia Herzegovina in 2015, the head of the B+H Bishops’ Conference said that the arrival of the Pope next year is realistic and achievable but the visit would be dependent on the progress of the Vatican’s ongoing discussions with the government (a reference to the application of the 2006 Basic Agreement, which governs the relationships and collaboration between the Church and State for the common good), and the financial costs and responsibilities associated with such a visit.

The cardinal added, “If the Holy See accept the invitation during this year it will be encouraging, primarily for Catholics, but also for the whole of Bosnia Herzegovina. I will be happy to see that journey realised.”
 
http://crownofstars.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/confessional-of-europe.html
http://www.spiritdaily.com/

Asia Bibi: "I ask the Pope for his prayers. May God forgive those who misuse my name"

 

Asia Bibi
Asia Bibi

Exclusive interview with Asia Bibi, the Pakistani mother who is currently on death row in a woman's prison in Multan

Paolo Affatato
She is not asking Pope Francis for public appeals but for prayers. In the suffering of a life spent in prison, Asia Bibi bitterly mentions those who use her name to fulfil their own personal interests. The 44-year old Christian woman sentenced to death for blasphemy in Pakistan in 2009, has broken her silence and agreed to speak to Vatican Insider through Lahore’s “Renaissance Education Foundation” which is currently looking after her family and providing for legal assistance. The farm worker from rural Punjab ended up in prison over a cup of water, after a row she had with two Muslim women who made false accusations against her. Here she talks about her fourth Christmas behind bars, her life, her fears and hopes. Asia, who has been on death row for the past five years and is currently being detained in women's prison in Multan, still holds strongly onto the Bible and her profound faith, trusting more in God’s Providence than in the Pakistani justice system. Since the high court upheld her death sentence, Asia is patiently awaiting the result of the third and final stage of her appeal which has been filed with the Supreme Court. Hoping for her miraculous release.
Asia, how are you now and what are your conditions like in jail?
I’m in good health and I'm feeling good in Jesus’ name. How could my condition be in jail? They are taking care of me in prison; I believe it is because my story is now known on an international level.
How do you spend your days?
I start praying early in the morning, in the name of Jesus Christ. Then breakfast and cleaning my cell. I think about myself, my family, and I pray for them. Then lunch, a walk, dinner. Every single day, I end my day by giving thanks to my Christ who was with me all day long, before taking rest.
Do you read the Holy Bible daily? Is there a Bible verse you always repeat in your prayers?
Yes I do. The Holy Bible it is an important book for me. The Word of God encourages me and gives me comfort and light in dark times. I love praying with the words of Psalm 138: "Even when I must walk in the midst of danger, you revive me. You oppose my angry enemies, and your right hand delivers me. O Lord, your loyal love endures. Do not abandon those whom you have made”. So even in my hours of anguish, my heart finds peace.
What do you wish deep down when you think of your family?
My greatest wish and hope is to go back to my family, to be with my husband Ashiq and with my five children. I often think about them and I miss them so much, especially in these days, when everyone is going to celebrate Christmas.
How are you going to spend Christmas? What does Christmas mean for you today?
I hope that the birthday of Jesus Christ will bring happiness and freedom to my life and that it may bring peace to the world and especially in Pakistan. Christmas does not mean having a new dress, or just celebrating, dancing. Christmas means sharing your love with everyone who is in need. I am suffering because I have spent every Christmas for the past five years in jail, far away from my family. I hope and pray that all the Christians can spend Christmas with their loved ones. It is the most beautiful gift you can have.
What do you think about the appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan?
We submitted the appeal. I do believe in Jesus’ name: His powerful hand will give me freedom. I remember St. Peter: when he was in jail, the Holy Spirit came and opened the doors of the jail. For my release, I am expecting a miracle like that.
Which people and organizations are really helping you and your family?
I am thankful to all the people in the international community and in Christian countries, who are with me with their prayers and support. I ask all those who are misusing my name for their own benefit: please stop and leave me alone. I am thankful to the "Renaissance Education Foundation" who is always close to me and my family. Anyone wishing to help can do so through this Foundation.
What do you ask of God?
I ask God to please forgive all those who are misusing my name for their own benefit and to give me freedom soon.
What would you ask Pope Francis and all Christian people in the world?
I ask Pope Francis and all Christians in the world to please remember me in your prayers. I do believe that your prayers can help me so that one day I may again enjoy the precious gift of freedom.
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/inquiries-and-interviews/detail/articolo/asia-bibi-38174/

At one point he recognised that there are no known exceptions to the dogma in our reality, we cannot see any one with the baptism of desire, but then again he went into a theology-mode

The conversation with Brother Andre Marie MICM was like having to say often look your nose is there before you just acknowledge it and please don't get into theology and philosophy.Just be in the present moment and acknowledge  that your nose is there.Are you aware of it?
I often felt like saying please  come back to our awareness of reality and don't see it with theology.Your theology is based on a non-reality.
At one point he recognised that there are no known exceptions to the dogma in our reality, we cannot see any one with the baptism of desire, but then again he went into a theology-mode.-L.A
From the website Catholicism.org. Comments are from the article Revolutionary Doctrines on the Family by Brother Andre Marie. October 22,2014
17. In considering the principle of gradualness in the divine salvific plan, one asks what possibilities are given to married couples who experience the failure of their marriage, or rather how it is possible to offer them Christ’s help through the ministry of the Church. In this respect, a significant hermeneutic key comes from the teaching of Vatican Council II, which, while it affirms that“although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure … these elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward Catholic unity” (Lumen Gentium, 8).
Lionel:
For the St.Benedict Center N.H 'elements of sanctification and truth'(LG 8) are known to them in real life and so these cases are exceptions, in Vatican Council II, for them, and so they reject Vatican Council II.
This is true also for the SSPX and other traditionalists.
So Cardinal Kaspar and the liberals have no opposition when they say that LG 8 refer to known cases saved outside the Church. The St. Benedict Center and other traditionalists   agree with him.In the sense that they infer that these cases are visible, defacto known and not just possibilities known to God.
The traditionalists  have always said that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The SSPX infer that these cases are visible and accept them while the St. Benedict Centers also infer that these cases are visible and known in the present times, and exist, followed by the baptism of water.
Never has Brother Andre Marie or corrected any one saying that the baptism of desire is not known and visible to us to be exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
 
20. Realizing the need, therefore, for spiritual discernment with regard to cohabitation, civil marriages and divorced and remarried persons, it is the task of the Church to recognize those seeds of the Word that have spread beyond its visible and sacramental boundaries.
Following the expansive gaze of Christ, whose light illuminates every man (cf. Jn 1,9; cf. Gaudium et Spes, 22), the Church turns respectfully to those who participate in her life in an incomplete and imperfect way, appreciating the positive values they contain rather than their limitations and shortcomings.
Lionel:
Never have the traditionalists said that those saved with the 'seeds of the Word' are not known-cases in the present times. So they cannot be exceptions or even relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
If someone is saved with the baptism of desire with the baptism of water, so what, we do not know any case in the present times.We cannot meet any exception to the dogma as interpreted by Fr.Leonard Feeney.
So when Vatican Council II is rejected as being opposed to tradition and extra ecclesiam nulla salus does not the fault lie with the traditionalists. For them LG 8,LG 16,NA 2,UR 3 etc refer to visible in the flesh cases in the present times.
_____________________________________________
 
Why don't you just say that LumenGentium 16 or Lumen Gentium 8 refer to cases which are not known to us over the last 100 years.So LG 16 and LG 8 are not exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
______________________________________________

  • Lionel Andrades 

    Why doesn't the St.Benedict Center just say that in October 2014 we do not know any person saved with the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood and so there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
    • Avatar
      Brother André Marie, M.I.C.M.

      Thank you for your clarity.
      OK: "In October 2014 we do not know any person saved with the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood and so there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus?"
      We never held that there were any exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
    • _________________________________________________
    •  

  • Yes with reference to the dogma there are no exceptions and your reasons are theological with which I agree.
    But if you infer that LG 16 and LG 8 and Vatican Council II contradict the dogma then it would mean there are exceptions for you.These cases exist in your reality, otherwise how could they be exceptions?

    __________________________________________________________
    Lionel:
    I don't know what you mean by all that.
    Is being saved in invincible ignorance an explicit exception to the dogma?
    Does the baptism of desire ( with or without the baptism of water) conflict with the dogma since these cases are physically visible to us in 2014?
    _______________________________________
     
    Brother Andre Marie MICM:

    I'm not sure what your reference to the "physically visible to us in 2014" means, since we cannot verify whether someone went to heaven by any of these means.
    ___________________________________________
    • War on the family

      Lionel Andrades 

      Brother Andre Marie I am not referring to theology. I agree with you there.
      By physically visible I mean can we see someone saved with the baptism of desire physically on earth, to be an exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation in 2014.
      Can we meet someone who is saved as such and who is also on earth, known and visible to us.?

      I mean it in the literal sense and not theologically.
    • _______________________________________
    •  
    I am asking an empirical , objective question.
    For instance I could ask a Hindu, Buddhist or other non Catholic :"Do we humans in general see people on earth who are also in Heaven ? Can we see them with the physical eye ?
    Or I could ask a young Catholic preparing for his First Holy Communion and unaware of the theological controversies in the Church after 1949: "Can you see with your eyes people on earth who are also in Heaven and have been saved with the baptism of desire followed by the baptism of water?"
    Or I could ask you, " Can you see on earth with your physical eye former non Catholics, now saved in Heaven with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance followed by the baptism of water?"
    Or to extend this thinking:"Can you physically see on earth, persons now saved with the 'seeds of the Word', (AG 11), imperfect  communion with the Church (UR 3) , followed by the baptism of water?"

    ______________________________________________

    Lionel Andrades 
    I repeat I am not referring to theology or subjective experiences.
    Can we meet someone who is saved as such and who is also on earth, known and visible to us.?
    I mean it in the literal sense
    _______________________________________________

    Brother André Marie, M.I.C.M.
    No.
    (Lionel: Note. Here he agrees.
    He agrees that literally we cannot see any such case on earth.)
    _____________________________________________

    So we agree that physically we cannot see anyone on earth saved as such.We do not personally know anyone saved in 2014 with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance. They are theoretical cases accepted in principle in only.
    They cannot be considered to be physically visible, defacto cases known in the present times.
    So when the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 refers to implicit desire and being saved in invincible ignorance it is referring to hypothethical cases. Someone invisible for us.
    The Letter also implies that these hypothetical cases, are objective ( physically visible) exceptions to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus( all needing the baptism of water with no exceptions) ?
    This is not rational.
    How can invisible for cases be defacto, real exceptions to the literal and traditional interpretation of Fr. Leonard Feeney, the Church Councils, popes and saints?

    _________________________________________________
    • Brother André Marie, M.I.C.M.

      I agree: It would be irrational to posit that we have verifiable cases of such speculative postulates in existence.
    • (Lionel: He still agrees that in our reality there is no known case of the baptism of desire etc)
    • _____________________________________________
     

    Lionel Andrades 
    We agree that that the cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are not physically visible to us on earth.
    We agree that those saved as such are hypothetical cases. They are not verifiable.They can only be speculative.
    They are not known or seen in our reality and they can only be accepted in principle, in theory, in faith.
    So every one in 2014, defacto, needs the baptism of water given to adults with Catholic Faith, for salvation and we do not know of any  explicit  exception. We do not know of any exception. Since hypothetical cases cannot be explicit exceptions.What does not exist in our reality is not an exception.
    So one can affirm the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( all need to be formal members of the Catholic Church with no exceptions) and also affirm implicit for us baptism of desire and invisible for us being saved in invincible ignorance.
    Since hypothetical baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are invisible for us they do not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction.
    If they were visible and known they would be contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction.Explicit baptism of desire (without the baptism of water) would contradict all needing to enter the Church with no exception.
    So one can affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, as it was interpreted over the centuries along with invisible for us baptism of desire etc , accepted in principle, as a possibility, but which is not an exception to the dogma.It does not have to be either /or since the baptism of desire is invisible for us, we cannot physically see these cases for them to be exceptions.
    _______________________________________________________
     
    So we can accept the 'speculative postulates' of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, along with the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney, the Church Councils, popes and saints.They both are compatible.They are not contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction.?
    (Since physically we cannot see any exception)
    Hypothetical, non verifiable cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance ,can be accepted along with all needing to be formal members of the Catholic Church , with no known exceptions in 2014? We can have it both ways. It does not have to be accepting the baptism of desire or accepting the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney ?
    ________________________________________________________
    (Here Brother Andre Marie  moves into theology and departs from what he said earlier)
    Lionel: I cannot grant that something I hold to be actually true in fact can, at the same time, be false in theory.
    (He holds that we physically cannot see any one earth saved with the baptism of desire.There are no known cases for him.We agree. This is reality.
    How does this become false in theory?)
    I cannot hold that the Eucharist is actually the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus in fact, but theoretically might not be.
    What I could grant, in any area of genuine theological opinion (not dogma per se), is that my theory could be wrong, but this is not the same as negating something "de facto" and affirming it "de jure," which you insist that I do.
    (He is lost in theology and philosophy.Who is saying that the Eucharist is physically visible to us and suggesting it is some exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus?. In faith I know that God is present in the Eucharist in his Body, Soul and Divinity. )
    ______________________________________________________

    • Lionel Andrades 

      We do not know any one saved with the baptism of desire followed by the baptism of water.We cannot see any one saved in Heaven.There are no cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance. And yet we have theologies of the baptism of desire with reference to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
      Similarly we do not know any one in 2014 saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) or seeds of the Word (AG 11). We cannot see these people in Heaven. Yet LG 16,AG 11, UR 3,NA 2, LG 8 etc are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? This is also the liberal position of Cardinal Walter Kaspar.In 2014 we do not know of any exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and yet Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma on salvation?

      'elements of sanctification and truth'(LG 8) are not known to us in personal cases in 2014.Yet it is to an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to theologies? So Vatican Council II is rejected by the traditionalists.
      Never has Brother Andre Marie or corrected any one saying that the baptism of desire is not known and visible to us to be an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
    • _________________________________________________
    Lionel Andrades 

    Brother Andre Marie
    What I could grant, in any area of genuine theological opinion (not dogma per se), is that my theory could be wrong, but this is not the same as negating something "de facto" and affirming it "de jure," which you insist that I do.

    (Who is asking him to negate something defacto and affirm it de jure.
    Defacto there are no cases known of the baptism of desire. We agree here.If there are no known cases, since we cannot know them physically,then  in theory, in principle I would say that we cannot physically see cases of the baptism of desire. That's all.I would not create a theological or philosophical principle which implies we can see them.)
    Lionel:
    but this is not the same as negating something "de facto" and affirming it "de jure," which you insist that I do.

    To what are you referring to?
    _________________________________________



    • Brother Andre Marie says:
      I cannot grant that something I hold to be actually true in fact can, at the same time, be false in theory.

      Lionel:
      I don't understand what you mean here.

      We still agree that we physically cannot see a person on earth in 2014 saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance.
      We also agree that being saved with the baptism of desire etc is something we can accept only in principle, in faith.We cannot accept it as being visible to us since only God knows who has been saved with the baptism of desire followed by the baptism of water.A person can be saved as such but we would not know who he is.
      So whatever one's theological position on the baptism of desire, finally, we have to agree that we cannot know or meet these cases-saved, on earth.
      So in theory we accept the baptism of desire - and in fact we know that we cannot know such a case now saved.In fact ( de facto) we do not know any one saved with the baptism of desire this year.
      So the baptism of desire is not a defacto exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus?

      __________________________________________

    La crisi della famiglia e il caso dei Francescani dell’Immacolata

     

    La crisi della famiglia e il caso dei Francescani dell’Immacolata(di Danilo Quinto) “La crisi della famiglia e il caso dei Francescani dell’Immacolata”. È il titolo del convegno che si è svolto nei giorni scorsi a Roma, presso la Sala Alessandrina del Complesso di Santo Spirito in Sassia.
    L’iniziativa è stata promossa dal “Comitato dell’Immacolata”, che si è costituito nei mesi scorsi, presentata da Claudio Circelli, che nell’intervento introduttivo ha evidenziato come il titolo del convegno non debba meravigliare: «perché – ha detto – sia la famiglia umana, sia la famiglia religiosa, sono oggetto di un attacco che si sostanzia nel tentativo di sgretolare i fondamenti costitutivi del loro esistere».
    Ha aggiunto: «Da un lato assistiamo sempre più alla giustificazione di ogni dissoluzione del matrimonio in nome dell’amore, divenuto solo un pretesto per dare libero sfogo agli istinti; dall’altro, nella vita consacrata, in nome dello stesso amore debole, corrispondente spesso ad un’ “obbedienza liquida”, si giustifica ogni cambiamento, anche il rifiuto del proprio carisma, per accomodarsi al tempo. Progresso è la parola d’ordine, che tanto nell’uno che nell’altro caso genera una nuova famiglia, senza più un’origine e perciò senza più un senso».
    Corrado Gnerre, nel finale del suo intervento intitolato «Le radici filosofiche dell’attacco alla famiglia e le loro conseguenze sulla vita religiosa», ha richiamato l’evento di Fatima, avvenuta il 13 ottobre 1917, dando questa spiegazione dell’apparizione in Cielo della Santa Famiglia: «Perché – ha affermato – sarebbero venuti tempi in cui la famiglia sarebbe stata fortemente minacciata e perché molte anime si sarebbero dannate a causa della crisi della famiglia».
    Si è infine chiesto: «Quante anime si trovano oggi a non poter raggiungere la salvezza a causa del disfacimento della vita religiosa, dell’oblio di quel ‘prefigurare il Cielo’ che le anime di speciale consacrazione sono chiamate a testimoniare?». L’aspetto storico dell’attacco alla famiglia è stato affrontato da Carlo Manetti, che ha sottolineato i “colpi” che la modernità ha inferto all’etica naturale cristiana. «Vedere che esiste un Ordine – ha detto – dove si vive di povertà e preghiera, dove la penitenza e la Croce sono, unite alla preghiera, gli strumenti di santificazione; vedere che in quest’Ordine si approfondisce, anche dottrinalmente e culturalmente, la spiritualità francescana e, più in generale, l’intero Cattolicesimo; vedere come in quest’Ordine le vocazioni crescano; vedere tutto ciò è scandalo agli occhi di coloro che hanno deciso di assecondare il mondo e la sua deriva».
    Ha fatto seguito l’intervento di Guido Vignelli, che nel suo intervento, intitolato “La famiglia, piccolo Stato e Chiesa domestica”, ha contrapposto l’era del piacere – annunciata negli anni ’70 da Pasolini – all’era della pietà, che potrà essere favorita da una «riscossa religiosa che affretti il giorno in cui le famiglie, gli ambienti sociali e le nazioni, ammetteranno gli errori presenti e, ricordandosi dei benefici perduti, avranno il coraggio di riconvertirsi a Cristo Re e a quella Chiesa che ha reso grande l’Italia e l’Europa intera».
    Con grande precisione, nel suo intervento – intitolato La verità della famiglia incatenata nelle parole contraffatte – Elisabetta Frezza ha richiamato la legge naturale «che si concreta nel logos cristiano» ed ha sottolineato che «il Sinodo rischia di assestare il colpo mortale sulla famiglia come disegnata nel piano della Creazione divina». La conclusione del convegno, affidata a Claudio Circelli – che ha richiamato «l’antica lotta tra la famiglia e il suo nemico» – è stata preceduta dall’intervento di Piero Mainardi, intitolato Il debole paradigma cattolico di oggi, nel corso del quale ha evidenziato l’ “itinerario” posti conciliare al servizio dei desideri mondani.

    The theology of the SSPX and the St.Benedict Centers is irrelevant.They mean well but they would obviously be going in circles.

    Anonymous :
    The bottom line, as far as I can see, has to do with how "Extra ecclesiam nulla salus" is meant to be understood. Feeney (excommunicated in 1953) apparently held that original sin is wiped away only by the character imprinted on the soul by Baptism.
    Lionel:
    The issue is that cases of the baptism of desire are not visible on earth. Those who are saved as such are in Heaven.
    So they are not exceptions to all, defacto on earth, needing the baptism of water for salvation.
    The theology of the SSPX and the St.Benedict Centers is irrelevant.
    They mean well but they would obviously be going in circles.
    'Zero cases of something are not exceptions' says the American apologist John Martigioni


    I think you mean "Sacramental water" baptism since it is my understanding either Feeney or his followers denied baptism by desire as taught by the Council of Trent.
    Lionel:
    I am not referring to theology.
    ______________________

    Of course Feeney's rigorism depends on there being absolutely no way of salvation for non-Catholics save formal visible membership in the Church which is only possible via water baptism.
    Baptism by desire makes the salvation of invincibly ignorant and innocent non-believing persons via extra-ordinary extra-sacramental grace possible.
    Lionel:
    I am not referring to theology.Even a little boy would know that we cannot see people in Heaven. So this has nothing to do with Catholic theology.

    _______
    __________________

    Thus the denial of baptism by desire and downplaying the
    council of Trent is needed to justify these doctrinal errors.
    Lionel:
    The Council of Trent only referred to implicit desire/baptism of desire. It did not say that these cases are known to us in the present times or that they are exceptions to the traditonal interpretationo of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
    -Lionel Andrades
     
     

    Pope John Paul II also fell before the objective error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/09/pope-john-paul-ii-also-fell-before.html

    Franciscans of the Immaculate accepted the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and the Cushingite version of Vatican Council II http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/09/franciscans-of-immaculate-accepted.html

    If the Letter of the Holy Office simply referred to implicit desire and being saved in invincible ignorance and left it at that it would be fine

    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/09/if-letter-of-holy-office-simply.html

    Hypothethical cases cannot be objective, seen in the flesh exceptions, to all needing the baptism of water for salvation in the present times

    Musings of a Pertinacious Papist
     
    ________________________________________
     
    Trady-pooh :
    What do you mean when you say: "I accept them [invincible ignorance and baptism by desire] as a possibility. I deny that they are exceptions to the dogma." ???
    Lionel:
    I accept that with certain conditions a person could be saved with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance followed by the baptism of water.I accept this in faith. In theory it is possible. It is hypothetical.

    To be an exception, these cases would have to be objective,explicit, seen and known.
    Hypothethical cases cannot be objective, seen in the flesh exceptions, to all needing the baptism of water for salvation in the present times.
    _______________________

    Do you mean that God may allow the salvation of someone without water baptism even though the dogma of the necessity of water baptism stands? If not, how should a reader make sense of your statement? It seems irrational.
    Lionel:
    Theogically I accept that a person can be saved with the baptism of desire followed by the baptism of water in a manner known only to God.
    God could send a preacher to him and have him baptised as St. Thomas Aquinas taught.
    Or God could send the person back to earth only to be baptised with water, as was the experience of St.Francis Xavier and other saints.
    Either way, with or without the baptism of water,these cases are invisible for us in 2014. So they are not exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
    __________________________

    The other thing that makes no sense is your appeal to "sight"; that is, your rejection of hypothetical cases because you cannot "see" them.
    Lionel:
    The dogma refers to all being formal members of the Church. Vatican Council II refers to all needing 'faith and baptism' for salvation(AG 7). One can only be a formal member of the Church in the present times.One can receive the baptism of water in only the present times.
    So if there was an exception it would have to be there in the present times. I would have to know him and see him.
    __________________________

    Do you "see" St. Joseph in heaven? Elijah?
    Lionel:
    After the Resurrection of Jesus everyone needs the baptism of water for salvation. This is what God the Father chose.
    So if there was an exception to this teaching in 2014, the case would have to be known.
    We do not know of any such exception.
    _________________________

    What sort of criterion is "sight"? It's not magisterial, so far as I can see, and it surely ain't biblical.
    Lionel:
    The pre-1949 magisterium said everyone needs the baptism of water for salvation.
    For me there is no one in 'sight' who is an exception to this biblical teaching(John 3:5, Mk.16:16).
    -Lionel Andrades
    https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6312447&postID=3181870308829741462&page=1&token=1419411026857

    There was no such case also in 1949. So the Holy Office and the Boston ecclesiastical hierarchy made an objective mistake





    Musings of a Pertinacious Papist







    Mighty Joe Young said...
    ++++++++++++++++++++++

    Rev. Francis Spirago THE CATECHISM EXPLAINED

    If baptism by water is impossible, it may be replaced by the baptism of desire, or by the baptism of blood, as in the case of those who suffer martyrdom for the faith of Christ.
    Lionel:
    This is an opinion. Fine. What is important to note is that it refers to something hypothetical.
    _____________________

    The Emperor Valentinian II was on the way to Milan to be baptized when he was assassinated; St. Ambrose said of him that his desire had been the
    means of his cleansing. The patriarchs, prophets and holy men of the Old Testament had the baptism of desire; their love of God was ardent, and they wished to do all that He commands. God accepts the will for the deed; in this He manifests His super-abundant loving kindness. But all the
    temporal penalties of sin are not remitted by the baptism of desire.
    Lionel:
    Fine.If he is Heaven he would have received the baptism of water too.
    However even if you say that he did not receive the baptism of water, please do not suggest that this case is an explicit exception to all receiving the baptism of water for salvation in 2014.
    ____________________

    Martyrdom for Christ's sake is the baptism of blood. This the holy innocents received, and the Church commemorates them as saints.
    Lionel:
    Holy Innoncents yes!
    But in 2014 there are no such known cases.
    ______________________

    All unbaptized persons who suffer martyrdom for the Christian faith, for some act of Christian virtue, or the fulfilment of a Christian duty, also received the baptism of blood. Witness St. John Baptist; or St. Emerentiana, who while yet a catechumen, was found by the pagans praying at St. Agnes' tomb, and was put ton death by them. The Church does not pray for the unbaptized who suffer death for Christ; for He Himself says,
    "He that shall lose his life for Me, shall find it." (Matt. x. 39).

    Lionel:
    Yes they are in Heaven with the baptism of blood.If God chose then St.Emerentiana, for example, would have also received the baptism of water in a manner known to God.
    What is important to note, is that there is no known case of St.Emerentiana this year.So she should not be considered an exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma.

    There was no such case also in 1949. So the Holy Office and the Boston ecclesiastical hierarchy made an objective mistake.The baptism of desire and blood had nothing do with the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.

    -Lionel Andrades
    https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6312447&postID=3181870308829741462