The discussion continues.1
Ok Lionel,
i understand your mindset clearer now. (Lionel: May be not) You are speculating (Lionel: I am not.It is clear that for the cardinal and the magisterium which followed the Letter (1949-2015), the baptism of desire is an exception to all needing to enter the Church, with the baptism of water. Even the traditionalists have accepted this. See the Section on Feeneyism on the SSPX (USA) website. Also see Wikipedia and so many other sources on the Internet. Are you saying that they do not consider the baptism of desire as an exception to the dogma? ) on what the cardinal might have been thinking but this is clearly not what he or the Church said. (Lionel: He has criticized Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.They did not accept the baptism of desire as an exception to the dogma. He was saying outside the Church there is salvation. The magisterium has accepted this in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.) When you assume that the Cardinal implied or inferred that these situations were known and/or exceptions (Lionel: Are you saying that Cardinal Marchetti implied or said, that there are no exceptions to the dogma? He agreed with Fr.Leonard Feeney ? ) those are your conclusions and certainly not what was said or quoted below. They once again describe states of holiness which God in his judgement may or may not grant salvation.(Lionel: This is not the issue. This is the theology of the baptism of desire . In itself the baptism of desire is not a problem. It is when it is considered an exception to the dogma that the error arises. It implies that these cases are explicit, objective and visible in the present times to be exceptions. This is an irrational inference.So if the cardinal only mentioned the charisteristics of the baptism of desire, it would not be an issue. It is when he faulted Fr.Leonard Feeney he was making an irrational statement) Their salvation is not known to us on earth any more than yours or mine is. (Lionel: Yes and the cardinal should not have assumed that they were an exception to the dogma. Since he was implying that these cases are known personally and their salvation is known. Otherwise how could they be exceptions ?) While we are still alive the state of our soul can turn for the better or worse in the blink of an eye.(Lionel : And either way we cannot say who has the baptism of desire. The cardinal did not know of any case) You are right in that all save a few in the church believe that it is necessary and commanded that the Church to teach for ALL to stay in the Church militant, return to the Church militant or convert to the Catholic Church.(Lionel: Is the baptism of desire relevant or an exception to the dogma for you? )
i understand your mindset clearer now. (Lionel: May be not) You are speculating (Lionel: I am not.It is clear that for the cardinal and the magisterium which followed the Letter (1949-2015), the baptism of desire is an exception to all needing to enter the Church, with the baptism of water. Even the traditionalists have accepted this. See the Section on Feeneyism on the SSPX (USA) website. Also see Wikipedia and so many other sources on the Internet. Are you saying that they do not consider the baptism of desire as an exception to the dogma? ) on what the cardinal might have been thinking but this is clearly not what he or the Church said. (Lionel: He has criticized Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.They did not accept the baptism of desire as an exception to the dogma. He was saying outside the Church there is salvation. The magisterium has accepted this in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.) When you assume that the Cardinal implied or inferred that these situations were known and/or exceptions (Lionel: Are you saying that Cardinal Marchetti implied or said, that there are no exceptions to the dogma? He agreed with Fr.Leonard Feeney ? ) those are your conclusions and certainly not what was said or quoted below. They once again describe states of holiness which God in his judgement may or may not grant salvation.(Lionel: This is not the issue. This is the theology of the baptism of desire . In itself the baptism of desire is not a problem. It is when it is considered an exception to the dogma that the error arises. It implies that these cases are explicit, objective and visible in the present times to be exceptions. This is an irrational inference.So if the cardinal only mentioned the charisteristics of the baptism of desire, it would not be an issue. It is when he faulted Fr.Leonard Feeney he was making an irrational statement) Their salvation is not known to us on earth any more than yours or mine is. (Lionel: Yes and the cardinal should not have assumed that they were an exception to the dogma. Since he was implying that these cases are known personally and their salvation is known. Otherwise how could they be exceptions ?) While we are still alive the state of our soul can turn for the better or worse in the blink of an eye.(Lionel : And either way we cannot say who has the baptism of desire. The cardinal did not know of any case) You are right in that all save a few in the church believe that it is necessary and commanded that the Church to teach for ALL to stay in the Church militant, return to the Church militant or convert to the Catholic Church.(Lionel: Is the baptism of desire relevant or an exception to the dogma for you? )
-Lionel Andrades
1
The lawful authorities were saying that there were exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/i-have-received-e-mail-today.html
Would the FSSP Monsignor say that according to Vatican Council II all need to formally enter the Church for salvation ? http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/would-fssp-monsignor-say-that-according.html
The baptism of desire is accepted by me since it is not an exception to the dogma even when it occurs and it is known only to God http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/the-baptism-of-desire-is-accepted-by-me.html
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment