Wednesday, July 20, 2016

Straw man arguments of baptism of desire (BOD) with reference to extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) when there are no BOD cases - 2

CONTINUED
 The obvious problem with your straw man argument is that its premise is erroneous - just because something is not visible to us does not mean it doesn't exist.
Lionel: So are you confirming what I have been saying all along? For you the baptism of desire cases are exceptions to EENS so you infer that they are physically seen.They are not invisible. Your premise is that hypothethical cases of the baptism of desire are visible? So they are relevant to EENS for you?
_____________________________

 And just because it's not visible to us does not preclude the Church from declaring that such cases join one to the Church.
Lionel: So you agree they are not visible and are no known in personal cases?
_____________________________

 Finally, in fact and reality, the Church has declared that such a case existed with St. Emerentiana.
Lionel: However you agree that no one in the Church could have seen her in Heaven with or without the baptism of water? But someone still went ahead and said she was in Heaven without the baptism of water?
____________________________
 
John: It doesn't matter that cases of BOD are invisible,which we have always granted.
Lionel: So you acknowledge that cases of BOD are invisible in 2016 . ..
 
John 2: Yes, we always have acknowledged that.
Lionel: Wonderful.So we all agree that BOD cases are invisible in 2016.So let us maintain this position.
______________________________
 

Lionel: and in the past...
 
John 2: No, we don't acknowledge that because the Church decided that St. Emerentiana died as a catechumen.
Lionel: We can agree that she died as a catechumen. This does not prevent God from having her baptised with water.
________________________________
 
Lionel: They do not exist in our reality?If you acknolwedge this then we can begin a dialogue.
 
John 2: Here is your error in black and white. Just because something is invisible does not mean it does not exist. Do I really have to explain this principle to you?
Lionel: If there is a baptism of desire case, with or without the baptism of water, it would only be known to God.It would only exist for God.We cannot say that there were 20 cases of the baptism of desire in 2016 or there were no cases.For us these cases are invisible as you agreed above.
_____________________________________

 
Lionel: You do not have any problem with the statements of Archishop
Gullickson, Fr. S.Visintin OSB, John Martigtnoni and the Brazilian
priest I quoted? They say BOD is not an exception to EENS, it is it
invisible.
 
John 2: I follow the teaching of the council of Trent, St. Thomas, and the entire Catholic Tradition, not individual priests and apologists. And I cannot comment on their statements because I have not read them. But if they said that BOD is not an exception to EENS, then I agree with them.
Lionel:They follow the teachings of the Council of Trent, St.Thomas Aquinas and the entire Catholic Tradition as I do.
So we all agree that BOD is not an exception to EENS.Since they are invisible cases and we cannot see invisible cases humanly.
However the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and the SSPX website on Feeneyism considers BOD an exception to EENS.Were they wrong for you? They are wrong for me? The second part of the Letter (1949) contradicts the first part.
__________________________________________
 

Lionel: Invisible cases cannot be exceptions to all needing to enter the
Church in 2016 for salvation
 
John 2: Correct, but more clarity is required. The term "invisible cases" does not mean "no cases" or "there could never be any such cases."
Lionel: Agreed!
______________________________

 Even though they may be invisible, the Church has the authority to declare that such cases join one to the Church for salvation (and the Church even applied its teaching to the real live case of St. Emerentiana). This long-standing doctrine was dogmatized at the council of Trent.
Lionel: It was not dogmatised at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent only referred to 'the desire thereof'. It did not state that this 'desirethereof' was visible and explicit.Theologians re-interpreted the Council of Trent. They inferred that this 'desirethereof' referred to known cases as did St.Thomas' 'man in the forest'.How could invisible cases be personally known? The theologians were wrong.
________________________________
 

John The Church has the authority to declare that BOD joins one to the
Church for salvation, which she has.
Lionel: O.K. The contemporarty magisterium has the authority to
contradict the past magisterium.
 
John 2: You need to be much more precise with your theology, Lionel. The Magisterium does not have the "authority" to contradict itself. But it can do so, by departing from the authority of Christ, and when it does, it in no way binds Catholics, as, for example, the many novelties it approved at the Second Vatican Council.
Lionel: The contemporary magisterium with authority interprets Vatican Council II with LG 16 etc being visible instead of invisible. With authority they expect the SSPX to accept this interpretation of Vatican Council II for canonical status.
The contemporary magisterium has with authority accepted the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which is a break with the pre- Council of Trent magisterium. With authority this Letter is referenced in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1995).
_________________________________
 
And invisible cases also dont mean they are an exception to EENS.
Lionel: Are they exceptions or are they not exceptions?
 
John 2: I've said it before, I said it right below in my prior email, and I guess I need to say it again. They are not exceptions. There are no exceptions to EENS.
Lionel: There are no exceptions to EENS. You are affirming EENS like the 16th century missionaries. You are rejecting EENS according to the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949?
_________________________________
 

John: They are not.
 
Lionel: So BOD is not an exception for you.
 
John 2: No, it is not, because the council of Trent declared that baptism joins one to the Church, in re or in voto. So BOD is not an exception according to the council of Trent.

Lionel: So BOD is not an exception to EENS according to the Council of Trent. You are affirming BOD according to St. Robert Bellarmine and we agree here.
-Lionel Andrades

SUMMARY:
1.You have said that the baptism of desire cases are physically invisible for us human beings.
2.So you are affirming EENS according to St. Robert Bellarmine since BOD is not physically visible and there are no personally known cases of someone saved in invincible ignorance without the baptism of water?
3.The SSPX official website which mentions Feeneyism and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 assumes BOD refers to physically known cases ?
4.The Vatican Curia wants the SSPX to interpret Vatican Council II with physically known cases of LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc, which are exceptions to EENS and the rest of Tradition? On this depends permission for canonical status?


CONTINUED
__________

No comments: