Thursday, December 25, 2014

Jeff Mirus gets away


So many times Jeff Mirus on Catholic Culture has criticicized the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus citing Vatican Council II . Brother Andre Marie MICM and Mr.Brian Kelly  have defended the dogma well, asking how can an infallible teaching be over ruled by the Council. 
However they have never asked Jeff Mirus to demonstrate how does Vatican Councl II contradict the dogma? 
No where does Vatican Council II contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus,if  they are not using Cushingism. Without an irrational premise LG 16,LG 8,UR 3,NA 2 etc do not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus
 Brother Andre Marie and Brian Kelly interpret Vatican Council II also with the irrational premise-just like Jeff Mirus. So they could not see his error. They assumed that Jeff Mirus was correct .The Council really contradicted the dogma for them. 
They did not  tell Mirus that there are no known exceptions in 2013-2014, of non Catholics saved, without  the baptism of water.
Those who have been saved in invincible ignorance(LG 16), elements of sanctification and truth(LG 8), etc are for us hypothetical cases. They are so also for Jeff Mirus.So these cases, hypothetically, could also have  been saved , with  the baptism of water, if God chose it. 
Vatican Councl II does not exclude someone being saved with the seeds of the word (AG 11) and with the baptism of water. 
Vatican Council II (AG 7) tells us that  'all' who are saved are saved with 'faith and baptism'. This is also the teaching of the dogma.
So tell Mirus 1) being saved in incivicble ignorance (LG 16) can also include the baptism of water and so LG 16 would not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
2) If is someone was saved without the baptism of water(LG 16) it is a hypothetical case and so would not contradict the dogma in 2014-2015.

Brother Andre Marie has said on the Catholicism website that  there are no known cases of the baptism  of desire, we cannot physically see any one earth as such . No such case exist.1

I asked him then :
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.?.
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 ?

He did not agree here.

 Why cannot the baptism of desire be compatible with extra ecclesiam nulla salus for him ? It does not have to be an either / or case.

He says 'Lionel: I cannot grant that something I hold to be actually true in fact can, at the same time, be false in theory...
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.
I am not insisting he do that. I will explain the defacto-dejure concept in another post)
However it does show that his image of the baptism of desire,he has  is one of being visible to us. This is the image he has in his mind. Since only if it was 'visible' it would be an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.If it was invisible,as he agreed earlier on the website , then the baptism of desire would be compatible with the dogma and it would not be an either-or case.It would not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction.
-Lionel Andrades


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 Divine Infancy

Pax Christi! The month of December is dedicated to the “Divine Infancy.” As with so many consecrated phrases in the Religion, that innocent pairing of words touches upon a great mystery that a little child can understand, while the greatest minds of Christendom, past and future, could never completely scale its heights. For a moment, let us situate ourselves somewhere between the little child and the greatest minds — hopefully without ceasing to be childlike.
For there to be a “Divine Infancy,” there must be an Infant who is God. For that Infant to be known as an infant by us, He must be of our own ken — a man like us. In other words, if we do not see a baby, we will not know that Baby; if we do not see a boy, we will not know that Boy. Thus, for there to be the month of the Divine Infancy, there must first have been the Mystery of the Incarnation, the Mystery of the God-made-Man. There is no December 25 without March 25.
Why is it that the Father or the Holy Ghost did not become incarnate in Mary’s blessed womb? Why was it the Son?
Simply speaking, it was more fitting, because the Divine Infancy of Jesus is a created echo of the eternal sonship of the Second Person of the Trinity. God, for all eternity, has a Child, who is the Image (Col. 1:15, 2 Cor. 4:4) and the Wisdom (1 Cor. 1:24) of the Eternal Father.
The words of Psalm 2:7 speak of the eternal day of the conception of the Son: “The Lord hath said to me: Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee.” In the New Testament (Acts 13:33, Hebrews 5:5), this passage is applied to the incarnate Christ.
Compare this to Isaias 9:6 — made so popular by George Frideric Handel,’s “Messiah”: “For a CHILD IS BORN to us, and a son is given to us, and the government is upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called, Wonderful, Counsellor, God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace.”
It would not be fitting that the Father become a child in time, for He is not from any other divine Person. He is not a son. Nor would it be fitting for the Holy Ghost to be incarnate, since He is the breath of Love between the Father and the Son. He is not Himself a son.
It is fitting that if Mary would look at a Divine Person and say, “Thou art my son,” it would be that One Person to whom those words are spoken in eternity by the Father.
We have mentioned in the past the “three births” that the three Christmas Masses celebrate: the Word’s birth in eternity (Mass of Christmas Day), Jesus’ birth of Mary (Midnight Mass), and the birth of Christ in our souls by faith and Baptism (Mass at Dawn). These three births are all related, for the unique “Born One” of Eternity is born in time so that we may be “born of God” (1 John 3:9) — that is, made children of the Father.
Since Mary is the Mother of our Head, Jesus Christ, She is also the Mother of His members. Mary is Mother of the “Whole Christ.”
I have summed up these thoughts in a poem, “The Three Births,” which I append to this letter.
Permit me now, please, a two-paragraph tangent. A few letters ago, in considering the “combat against the errors of modernity,” I said that we must prosecute this battle “with or without the help of our clergy.” I received a letter from a priest who took exception to this. In my reply (which I think satisfied him), I wrote that the existence of a crisis in the priesthood, nearly universally acknowledged, could hardly be considered a radical or controversial idea.
Still, the reaction I received from this good priest reminded me that I have never, at least not in writing, collectively thanked all those good priests who support our Crusade in a variety of ways. They are many and diverse, secular and regular, Roman Rite and Eastern. They, along with the seminarians and religious who in any way support us are a source of consolation, encouragement, and help. THANK YOU, GOOD FATHERS!
Now, on behalf of all the brothers and sisters, I say sincerely, “Thank you!” to all our friends and benefactors for your generous support. Without it, we simply could not carry out our apostolate. I also ask for your continued benefactions, which remain truly needed. Your contributions go to the support of such things as:
  • The education and formation of our young religious brothers and sisters.
  • The material support of the priests who minister to us.
  • Our publications.
  • Our IHM School.
  • The expenses associated with our very fruitful Internet apostolate.
  • Maintenance of our physical plant.
  • Vehicle maintenance on the small, hard-driven fleet that shuttles our brothers and sisters far and wide to distribute our books and spread the Faith.
All the thoughts in this letter of Our heavenly Father, our loving Mother, and Divine Sonship, reminds us that Catholicism, dear readers, is a family affair. May your families be blessed by the Holy Family this Christmas, New Years, and Epiphany. God bless and Mary keep you all.
The Three Births
His birth in time transpired thus
At Beth’lem’s midnight manger
Where Joseph’s toil made all things well,
Kept maiden spouse from danger.

He forth from blessed womb did come
As light through crystal streaming,
Sans blight on Virgin’s radiance,
True God, a Baby beaming.

His birth in souls is oft renewed
Where water meets the Spirit,
The soul reborn is born in Him,
And He abides within it.

When Shepherds saw the Swaddling Boy
With Joseph and the Maiden
They understood the angel song,
God’s grace did them enlighten.

The ‘ternal birth ineffable,
Out time, and space, and death-shade,
In bosom of the Father-God,
Begets the Son who’s not made.

God’s Image true, the Selfsame’s Word,
Begot by Mind’s cognition,
With Father Consubstantial, He
Defies man’s comprehension.

Now all three births in one great Feast
We Christians jubilating,
At midnight, dawn, and bright of day
Three Masses celebrating.

And these three Mysteries unite
Round theme of sacred birthing:
The Son of God, the Virgin’s Boy
Makes us the Father’s offspring.

In the Immaculate Heart of Mary,