Saturday, June 27, 2015

We cannot say that any particular person on earth today will be saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church but instead with baptism of desire.



Obviously, you don't know the ancient law:
"If they [Catechumens] died without Baptism BY THEIR OWN NEGLECT, OR BY THEIR OWN FAULT, they were disqualified for Christian burial. Where, however, there was no contempt, but only some necessity prevented the Baptism of Catechumens, the ancients treated them a little more favorably; not considering the mere want of Baptism under these circumstances to be of such consequence as to exclude men from Church-communion." (See Encyclopedia Metropolitana, {1820} pg. 387--Emphasis mine)
Lionel:
Yes and these cases would only be known to God.We cannot say that any particular person on earth today will be saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church but instead with baptism of desire.
So what has the baptism of desire to do with the dogma?
______________________

So it was the practice to exclude those who by their own contempt and neglect failed to be baptized. The law hasn't changed, it's identical to ancient practice!! Once again, the Church is infallible when promulgating universal discipline as did Pope Benedict XV. What got worse were those who, not understanding the Catholic Truth distort it to where everyone receives "BOD" and goes to Heaven. 
Lionel:
O.K they go to Heaven.
However you are referring to a hypothetical case for you ?
______________________

Pope Pius XI was explaining the ordinary means. Did he not adhere and accept the Code of Canon Law which admits of BOD and BOB? You're setting up a false dichotomy. Wouldn't he have contradicted Pope Pius IX in "Quanto Conficiamur Moerore"? 
Lionel:
Ordinary or extra ordinary means, how would you know ? You don't know a single case over the last few years or more.
______________________

Paragraph # 7:
"Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments. "
Lionel:
O.K there could be some case of a person in invincible ignorance, who has perfect charity and a good conscience.
So how is this linked to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus if there are no such known cases today.
O.K it is a possibility but you are not inferring that it is an exception or related to EENS?
____________________________

Attain eternal light by divine light and grace. No mention of the external rite of Baptism. So which pope is the heretic? Neither, since Pope Pius IX was speaking of extraordinary means and Pope Pius XI of ordinary means.

Example: If someone says, "You must eat in order to live. You will starve to death otherwise." He speaks the truth. This is the normal way we live under the biological laws created by God.

Someone else says, "You don't need to eat if God allows you to survive and thrive by a miracle." This is also true. It does not contradict the first statement of ordinary means. However, I will eat and not depend upon God for miraculous intervention as in the case of some saints who lived many years only consuming the Sacred Host at daily Communion. BOD is a miracle of grace in the supernatural order, but it is rare and we cannot depend on it to save other. Hence, the Great Commission.
Lionel:
How would you know it is rare?
-Lionel Andrades

No comments: