Saturday, June 4, 2016

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

SSPX in its theological and philosophical formation is using the false premise and conclusion which is the basis of the new theology.

bruno_forte_cfn
Granted, the Vatican recognizing the SSPX as genuinely Catholic is simply a matter of justice, for the SSPX is faithful to all that the Church has taught and practiced throughout the centuries including the inconvenient truths of Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors, Pius XI’s Quas Primas and other counter-revolutionary Papal texts.-John Vennari


Lionel:
In the previous blog post I mentioned how the SSPX is  not faithful to the Syllabus of Errors.Theologically, for SSPX bishops and many priests , there are exceptions to the Syllabus teachings on other religions and Christian communities.1
Philosophy needs to submit to rationality and Tradition.Yet the SSPX reasons out that there are known cases of the baptism of desire .This is an irrational premise. Also no magisterial document before the Council of Trent says there are explicit cases of the baptism of desire.Then the SSPX concludes that since there are known cases of the baptism of desire; they are seen in the flesh for them, these cases are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, according to the 16th century missionaries.
II. MODERATE RATIONALISM

10. As the philosopher is one thing, and philosophy another, so it is the right and duty of the philosopher to subject himself to the authority which he shall have proved to be true; but philosophy neither can nor ought to submit to any such authority.—Ibid., Dec. 11, 1862.-Syllabus of Errors


The SSPX has accepted the wrong philosophical reasoning in the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston. The Letter speculated that hypothetical cases can be explicit ( false premise) and so there were exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (conclusion).


11. The Church not only ought never to pass judgment on philosophy, but ought to tolerate the errors of philosophy, leaving it to correct itself.—Ibid., Dec. 21, 1863.
Lionel:
This philosophical error of assuming hypothetical cases are objective was made by the liberals at Boston and Rome in 1949 and then the error was inserted in Vatican Council II.The SSPX is not aware of it .So we cannot expect them to correct it.
_________________________________



13. The method and principles by which the old scholastic doctors cultivated theology are no longer suitable to the demands of our times and to the progress of the sciences.—Ibid.

Lionel:
 SSPX in its theological and philosopsical formation is using the false premise and conclusion which is the basis of the new theology. So it has rejected the philophical reasoning and traditional theology of the pre Council of Trent times.
-Lionel Andrades




1


The SSPX is not faithful to the Syllabus of Errors.Theologically, for SSPX bishops and many priests , there are exceptions to the Syllabus teachings on other religions and Christian communities.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/the-sspx-is-not-faithful-to-syllabus-of.html




https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P9SYLL.HTM

Traditionalists and sedevacantists are also denying the Deposit of Faith when they deny extra ecclesiam nulla salus(Feeneyite)

Comments on the blog The  Eponymous Flower

Clearly a pope, who denies The Deposit of Faith, would expose himself to be anti Pope, and thus could not possibly be infallible in regards to Faith and morals. 

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm

Lionel:

N.D,
Even traditionalists and sedevantists are denying the Deposit of Faith when they deny the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus by assuming there are known exceptions. This was the mistake of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
They have also changed the Nicene Creed by assuming there are three known baptisms instead of one.
They also wrongly interpret Vatican Council II with an irrational premise to reach a non traditional and heretical conclusion.
I do not interpret Vatican Council II as a break with the Feeneyite interpretation of EENs. So there is no change in the Deposit of the Faith as it is therefor the two popes and also the traditionalists and sedevantists.
-Lionel Andrades
https://eponymousflower.blogspot.it/2016/05/true-or-false-pope-part-i-john-salza.html?showComment=1465050679023#c6344510372151223447



bruno_forte_cfn

The SSPX is not faithful to the Syllabus of Errors.Theologically, for SSPX bishops and many priests , there are exceptions to the Syllabus teachings on other religions and Christian communities.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/the-sspx-is-not-faithful-to-syllabus-of.html