The theology of the Magisterium has gone off the rails. It is bad theology to assume there are objective cases on earth, in the present times, of people who are in Heaven

Comments from the blog post. 1

 

George Brenner said...
Lionel,you continue to completely miss the point. Church teaching on Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood and Invincible Ignorance are sound and require obedience to their teaching and as a wise friend just posted today
Lionel:
So where and when have I denied it? Please refer me to it.
They are possibilities. I have said this many times.

Obviously we do not know of a case in 2015. This would be known only to God. So defacto there is no such case.
St.Emerentiana is deceased. So she is not a known exception to the dogma in 2015. I cannot say that every one does not need the baptism of desire in 2015 because St.Emerentiana died without the baptism of water in the past.This would be irrational thinking.

So I accept the possibility of being saved with the baptism of desire or blood. However they are not relevant to the interpretation of Fr.Feeney. The Letter of the Holy Office assumed that they are exceptions. This was a factual mistake. How can they be exceptions to all needing faith and baptism for salvation in 2015, when we do not know and cannot know any such exception? An exception must exist in our reality to be an exception.
______________________

: "If the doctrine has been abused,
Lionel:

This doctrine on the baptism of desire and blood and invincible ignorance is not relevant to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. I am not referring to the theology of these doctrines.
______________________________

 

 

and it clearly has been,
Lionel:

 When the SSPX for example assume that these cases are objectively known in the present times, then it is an abuse. This could also be the error of the FSSP Monsignor you spoke to .
Since he cannot say that Vatican Council II says all need faith and baptism for salvation and so all non Catholics need to convert to avoid Hell.

For him there are objective exceptions to the dogma, in Vatican Council II, for example, LG 16 ( saved in invincible ignorance or a good conscience)

_____________________

 it is not the fault of the doctrine, but of weak men, for the baptism of desire does NOT render the sacrament of Baptism “optional” or “unnecessary”, neither does it turn the words of our Lord in John 3:5 into a “metaphor” for Baptism, and neither does it deny that true and natural water is absolutely necessary for a valid sacrament.
Lionel:

 'Neither does it deny that true and natural water is absolutely necessary for a valid sacrament.' Yes it does not deny it, only when you are aware that there are no objective cases in the present times. So there are no objective exceptions to all needing to be formal members of the Church with the baptism of water.
The Holy Office made an objective error in 1949 and this has been accepted by the SSPX and others.
______________________

Go ahead and shake your fist at Pope St. Pius V, Gregory XIII, Clement XIII, Innocent III, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Benedict XV
Lionel:
Why them? They have only mentioned implicit desire and being saved in ignorance. They have not stated that these cases are exceptions to the dogma. This was the wrong inference of the Holy Office Letter in 1949.
____________________________

and Pius XII;
Lionel:
Pope Pius XII did not correct the error in the Letter of the Holy Office during his pontificate and neither did he lift the excommunication of Fr.Leonard Feeney. He let the error persist in the Catholic Church.
___________________________

shake your fist at the greatest Doctors (and saints) of the Church to include Augustine, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen, Bernard of Clairveaux, Albert the Great, Bonaventure, Thomas Aquinas, Peter Canisius, Robert Bellarmine and Alphonsus de Liguori;
Lionel:

None of them have said that there are known exceptions to the dogma.
After 1949 to justify the error, theologians began interpreting these saints using the Marchetti Inference i.e there are visible exceptions to the dogma of persons saved in invincible ignorance etc.

None of these saints have said that salvation in Heaven is objectively visible on earth and these cases are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma.
This new doctrine came into the Church only in 1949.
__________________________

 shake your fist at each and every of the scholastic theologians and manualists – not a single one of whom “denied” the baptism of blood and desire,
Lionel:
They did not have to deny the baptism of desire and blood. They could accept it.Since the baptism of desire and blood are not exceptions to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.

So one can affirm the baptism of desire and blood AND ALSO the strict interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.

If there were objective, known cases in 2015 then you could not affirm the strict interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
______________________

and every one of whom who weighed in on this topic affirmed the same doctrine"
Lionel:
Yes but with a difference.
For me these cases are possibilities known only to God.So they cannot be exceptions to the dogma.
For others these cases are exceptions to the dogma, so they must be objective for them in the present times. This is an irrational proposition. To build ones theology on this irrational premise creates irrational theology. It is bad theology.

Yet this is the familiar Marchetti theology used in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
______________________________
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Father Feeney denied that Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood and Invincible could happen on earth OR in Heaven.
Lionel:
He denied there was salvation outside the Church.

 

 How can the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to salvation outside the Church when objectively we do not know of any case?
________________________

You continually ignore that fact in your hybrid interpretation. You also dictate how God judges when you say that He must baptize with water.
Lionel:
This is what the dogma says. This teaching is repeated in Vatican Council II (LG 14,AG 7).I interpret them without visible and known to us baptism of desire etc.
______________________

Church teaching on Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood and Invincible Ignorance have nothing to do with teaching all that they must enter, stay or return to the Catholic Church for Salvation and be baptized with water.
Lionel:

 Agreed!
_________________________

This idea of exceptions has no place in the discussion by you OR those that abuse the truth.
Lionel:
It has not place in the discussion.It is irrelevant. We agree here!
___________________

Wolves in sheep's clothing have always been with us. From your posts I see that you are moving towards the truth but still misunderstand that which the Church teaches versus the abuses in what the Church teaches which are sickening and disobedient to Jesus command.
Lionel:
The theology of the Magisterium has gone off the rails.

 

 It is bad theology to assume there are objective cases on earth, in the present times, of people who are in Heaven.
- Lionel Andrades

 

 

 

1

 

February 14, 2015

Every one needs to be a Catholic : Those who are taught or not taught, those who know or do not know about the Church, will be decided by Jesus

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/every-one-needs-to-be-catholic-those.html