My Approach : apologetics

MY APPROACH

I affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).I then affirm it  in agreement with Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14). I say that EENS and Vatican Council II say all need to formally enter the Church for salvation ( with faith and baptism ).There are no exceptions. This is the general rule, this is the de fide teaching.

Then I say that I personally I do not know of any one saved with the baptism of desire or blood, with or without the baptism of water. So there are no known exceptions to the dogma  for me in 2016.

The baptism of desire is a hypothetical case. For it to be an exception or relevant to EENS it would have to be explicit. Zero cases of something are not exceptions to EENS says the apologist John Martignoni.

So the bottom line is that there is no known salvation outside the Church for me. I cannot meet someone saved without the baptism of water.This is physically impossible and so no one in the past could also have known of a case of someone saved outside the Church.

So this is my basic position. Then I wait for the questions to come.

So your reject the baptism of desire, it is asked?

I accept implicit for us baptism of desire, a possibility, a hypothetical case.It is theoretical for me.

I reject explicit for us baptism of desire.Since no one could have known of an explicit case of the baptism of desire.If any one says that a hypothetical case is objectively visible it would be an objective error.

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 refers to the baptism of desire with respect to EENS?

Yes. The second part of the Letter made an objective mistake. It assumed a hypothetical case was an objective exception to the traditional interpretation of EENS, the Feeneyite interpretation.

________________________

Vatican Council II mentions the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance.

Yes.It was a mistake which is a carry over from the Letter (1949).There should not have been a reference to the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance in  Ad Gentes  7 and Lumen Gentium  14. Any way since the baptism of desire etc refer to hypothetical cases LG 14 and AG 7 do not contradict the centuries old interpretation of the dogma, the 'rigorist interpretation'. So no hypothetical reference in Vatican Council II can be an exception to EENS.

What about St. Emerentiana and St.Victor, who went to Heaven without the baptism of water?

How could any one know of any saint being in Heaven without the baptism of water? This is speculation.

________________________

Feeneyites/and that those who hold to no BoB/BoD can go to heaven because it is an infallibly taught doctrine. 

The St.Benedict Center N.H,USA  affirms the baptism of desire but they say it must be followed by the baptism of water.

I agree with them.This is a theoretical case.Acccording to the dogma this theoretical case must include the baptism of water .

I (Lionel) do not reject the baptism of desire and blood.Since I know they refer to invisible cases for us. So they are not exceptions to the dogma.

For the FSSP/SSPX  priests the baptism of desire is an exception to EENS. So they infer that they know of someone saved or about to be saved with the baptism of desire .This is irrational. The FSSP/SSPX  position like that of the Letter (1949)  is irrational. 

______________________________

 They cite Trent, 

The Council of Trent does not state that 'thedesiretherof' is known, explicit, objectively seen. So the desiretherof is not an exception to EENS.It is the liberal theologians who have interpreted the Council of Trent as referring to an explicit case.

__________________________________

and the early writings of St. Augustine,

St.Augustine affirmed the traditional interpretation of the dogma, the Feeneyite interpretation. So did St.Thomas Aquinas. This was the interpretation of the 16th centuries missionaries too.

________________________________

They site, Ambrose, the story of the Prince who went into battle unbaptized, etc. 

St. Ambrose could not have known if the Prince was in Heaven. He speculated  with good will.How could he humanly know if the Prince went to Heaven unbaptized? Did he go to Heaven and return?!

_______________________________

  Others as St. Alphonsus, etc......

St.Alphonus Ligouri held the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS.He did not state that the baptism of desire was explicit and so an exception to EENs. This is an FFSP/SSPX  interpretation.

_______________________________

As long as I  make the distinction between explicit and implicit, visible and invisible baptism of desire , I am on safe ground. Since they cannot accuse me of being in heresy. I keep affirming the dogma EENS according to the Councils ( Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441 etc) and I keep affirming implicit for us  baptism of desire.So i am  not rejecting either of the two.This is clear for me.

If the FSSP/SSPX  priest says that you cannot say that you accept the baptism of desire and also the traditional interpretation of EENS and this is  contrary to the Principle of Non Conctradiction...

I tell him that only explicit for us baptism of desire would contradict the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS.Hypothetical baptism of desire would not contradict the strict interpretation of EENS.So I  can have it both ways: invisible for us baptism of desire and the strict interpretation of EENS.

For him there is a contradiction since the baptism of desire is explicit.

So how could I  be a heretic ? I am  not denying the baptism of desire (implicit).I am not denying EENS( Feeneyite/traditional). I am  not denying Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite).

On the other hand it is the FSSP/SSPX  priest who denies invisible for us baptism of desire.

He rejects EENS since explicit for us baptism of desire contradicts EENS.He has to accept EENS with this irrationality.

He rejects Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) and assumes hypothetical cases are objective. Then Vatican Council II for him becomes a break with EENS and the Syllabus of Errors.The only thing going for him is that the contemporary magisterium makes the same error and it is a break with the pre-Council of Trent times.

Theologically 

Theologically I make the distinction between Cushingism and Feeneyism.

Cushingism says there are known exceptions to EENS. The baptism of desire is a known exception to EENS for Cushingites.The popes and the FSSP /SSPX priests are Cushingites.

Feeneyism says there are NO known exceptions to EENS. The baptism of desire is unknown .It is not an an exception to EENS.

I can interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism or Feeneyism.

I can interpret EENS with Cushingism or Feeneyism.

Similarly the baptism of desire can be visible or invisible , Cushingite or Feeneyite.
Feeneyism is rational. Cushingism is irrational and an innovation in the Church.

-Lionel Andrades