Wednesday, July 20, 2016

Can I quote you as saying that that there are no physically known cases of the baptism of desire in the present times(2016)? Is this something difficult for you?


Related image


So can I quote you as saying that that there are no physically known cases of the baptism of desire in the present times(2016)? This is the question I asked the person with whom I have been discussing this issue for a few weeks now.He has agreed that there are no physical cases of the baptism of desire. The baptism of desire is invisible for us human beings in 2016.There is nothing extra ordinary about this question and the answer is simple. Yet it has been so difficult for cardinals and bishops to simply answer this question.Since they have attachments and responsibilities and they want to maintain their reputation even at the cost of error in the Church.

A lay man was asked this question.He is a supporter of the SSPX.He simply had to say the obvious."Yes go ahead and quote me. It is common knowledge that there are no known cases of the baptism of desire in 2016".

But will he say so?

Since for the SSPX their new theology is based on there being known exceptions to the dogma EENS. Even for the sedevacantists Bishop Donald Sanborn and Fr. Anthony Cekada, who have had their religious formation under Archbishop Lefebvre, there are physical cases of the baptism of desire.Other wise how would the baptism of desire be an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, how would it even be relevant to EENS.This is the new theology of traditionalists associated with Rorate Caeili.In this way Vatican Council II emerges for them,as a break with Tradition. Physically known LG 16 is an explicit exception to the dogma EENS and the Syllabus of Errors.

l'immagine del profilo di Louie Verrecchio

Presently on Louie Verrecchio's blog,UR 3 is considered physically known for it to be an exception to Tradition for him.

Physically known cases of the baptism of desire!!!
This is the cutting point.
It is from here that the traditionalists and sedevacantists make an error in philosophical reasoning ( subjectivism) and support a new theology based on an irrationality(physically visible cases of the baptism of desire and persons saved without the baptism of water).
It is from here that I avoid the new theology with the irrational premise and so I automatically go back to the old ecclesiolgy based on EENS with no exceptions.
If the SSPX can say that there are no physically visible cases of BOD or LG 16 then they have a Vatican Council II which is traditional. No matter how every one else interprets Vatican Council II they can affirm a Council which is traditional on EENS and the old ecclesiology of the Church. They could ask the Vatican Curia to do the same i.e accept EENS and Vatican Council II with there being no physically known cases of the baptism of desire or being saved in invincible ignorance.
I mean obviously there are no such cases in the present times!
-Lionel Andrades






So can I quote you as saying that that there are no physically known cases of the baptism of desire in the present times(2016)?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/07/so-can-i-quote-you-as-saying-that-that.html


So can I quote you as saying that that there are no physically known cases of the baptism of desire in the present times(2016)?



CONTINUED
Lionel, you have consistently avoided my rebuttals and interrogatories entirely. 
You have failed to produce the dogmatic definition from the Church which says that baptism of desire is always followed by water, even though I have repeatedly asked for this (you produce only statements on EENS, even though you also claim that EENS is not relevant to BOD). THAT IS BECAUSE NO SUCH DOGMATIC DEFINITION EXISTS. 
Lionel: Exactly.No such definition exists. Since when the dogma was defined it was not the fashion or stupidity to consider BOD as being explicit.
In general the dogma says all need the baptism of water. So if you refer to a hypothetical case saved with the baptism of desire,this imaginary person would be saved with supernatural faith, perfect charity, the desire for the baptism of water and the baptism of water.We are referring to a speculative case. In real life there is no known catechumen who we know who dies before he receives the baptism of water and is saved.The baptism of desire in itself is a classic strawman.
_______________________________

You have failed to respond to my interrogatory whether St. Thomas Aquinas was a heretic. THAT IS BECAUSE ST. THOMAS TAUGHT THAT BOD JOINS ONE TO THE CHURCH FOR SALVATION,
Lionel: We agree here.He was not a heretic.
He affirmed the 'rigorist interpretation' of the dogma EENS.If he says BOD joins one to the Church for salvation I do not have a problem with it.
 WITHOUT THE WATER, 
Lionel: If he said without water then he was wrong.Though I am not familiar with the text where he said the person could be saved without water.Instead he said the man in the forest in ignorance would not be saved without the baptism of water since God would send a preacher.
Possibly the same liberals who wrongly say that St. Thomas Aquinas said the man in the forest in ignorance will be saved without the baptism of water are saying the same thing about Aquinas and BOD.
_________________________________

AND YOU HOLD THAT AS HERETICAL, BUT DON'T HAVE THE GUTS TO CALL ST. THOMAS A HERETIC.
Lionel: If he said the baptism of desire was explicit or that being saved in invincible ignorance was explicit and excluded the baptism of water, then this conclusion would be heretical. However if a pope or saint in good will is referring to a hypothetical case, then it is mere speculation.It is not relevant  to EENs in the present times,since it is not a defacto case.
__________________________________ 

You also confuse St. Thomas' example of one in invincible ignorance with a catechumen, like St. Emerentiana, who was not in invincible ignorance.
Lionel: There is no connection between St.Thomas' example of the man in the forest in ignorance or St. Emerentiana as a catechumen.
Hypothetically for me, all need the baptism of water for salvation. In Heaven there are only Catholics and they are there with faith and the baptism of water.
_____________________________________ 

 This, in your mind, helps you avoid St. Thomas' "heresy." It's quite easy to see what you are doing. Unfortunately for you, everyone knows that BOD cases and invincible ignorance cases are completely different cases.
Lionel:
Theoretically we differentiate them. In real life we do not know of any such case, saved. De facto they do not exist for us human beings.
_________________________________________

 But you want to merge them together based on your false reading of St. Thomas, and then long jump to the false conclusion that everyone saved gets the water. Again, we can see through your illogical and erroneous argumentation. 
You fail to understand that whether cases of BOD are invisible or not is IRRELEVANT to whether BOD joins one to the Church for salvation, as the Church herself has declared. And you even refer to people like John Martignoni to support your argument, even though Martignoni completely rejects your position on BOD! 
Lionel: You have said in your last e-mail that there are no physical cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), Martignoni is saying the same thing. So am I.
That's all. There are no physical cases of the BOD and the rest falls in line.
You have agreed that the baptism of desire cases are physically invisible.
__________________________________________

You deny that St. Emerentiana died as a catechumen even though the Church said she did. 
Lionel: I mentioned in the last e-mail that I accept that St. Emerentiana is a saint and she is a catechumen.This does not mean she has not received the baptism of water, after God sent a preacher( Aquinas) or she was baptised after she died( St.Francis Xavier).So it is not an issue for me, if she died as a catechumen.
_____________________________________________

Your errors have been exposed. 
Lionel: You have not answered any of the questions I asked in the summary of the last e-mail response.Instead you are mentioning issues which I have already answered in previous e-mails.

Straw man arguments of baptism of desire (BOD) with reference to extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) when there are no BOD cases - 3


SUMMARY
1. So when you attend Mass, LG 16 ( invincible ignorance) is an exception to EENS. So Vatican Council II contradicts EENS for you?

2. Would UR 3 be an exception to EENS?

3.For Louie Verrechio there are explicit cases of someone being saved in 'imperfect communion with the Church' (UR 3). So he is critical of UR 3?

4.In your ecclesiology all need to enter the Church in 2016 except for cases of the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance?

5. We humans cannot know of any catechumen who died before he received the baptism of water and was saved ?

6.The Nicene Creed and the Athanasius Creed do not mention the baptism of desire ?

7.When Louie Verrecchio, Una Voce and liberal ecumenists assume UR 3 ( see above) contradicts the dogma EENS and the Syllabus of Errors, is this rational for you? A rational interpretation?
8.Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops overlooked this modernism i.e physically explicit for us baptism of desire which is an exeption to  the dogma EENS?

_________________________________________


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

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?

___________________________________________________


Straw man arguments of baptism of desire (BOD) with reference to extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) when there are no BOD cases - 1

SUMMARY
1.Does the baptism of desire refer to physically invisible cases for you ?
2. Would they always physically invisible to the naked eye even in the past?
_____________________________________________

You are correct on one thing. We cannot continue the dialogue because you continue to skip over the most obvious defects in your argumentation, and respond with the same, already-refuted arguments. I suggest you read our book...from beginning to end, so that you develop a true and correct ecclesiology, according to the classical theologians, which will lead you out of your error concerning baptism of desire, and how God joins man to the Church for salvation. 
Lionel: 
Are you saying all this to avoid answering those questions in red.Is this some form of distraction?
_______________________________________________

In fact, I challenge you to read our chapters on ecclesiology and BOD and, if you still disagree with us, put your rebuttal in writing, like a real scholar.
Lionel: As a Catholic could you be honest and say that you do not want to answer the questions in red due to a personal reason ? 
_________________________________


 And then we will deal with your arguments accordingly. Are you game?
Lionel: What arguments? You have been going around in circles.In the last e-mail you agreed that there are no physical cases of the baptism of desire.Simply confirm this. That's all.
Ratzinger and Rahner drinking beer
It is from this point that I go back to the old ecclesiology and it is from this point Ratzinger, Rahner, Kung and others go into the new theology.This is the crucial point which decides the sedevacantism of the sedevacantists based on Vatican Council II ( with or without physical BOD).It is this point which decides if the SSPX gets canonical status for accepting Vatican Council II ( with or without the physical BOD).
l'immagine del profilo di Louie Verrecchio
It is on this point that we know that for Louie Verrecchio, UR 3 is an exception to EENS and Tradition.Since UR 3 refers to a physical case, a physically known UR 3 for Louie.If he would agree that UR 3 cannot be physical, then UR 3 would not contradict the dogma EENS and the Syllabus of Errors.It's as simple as that.
So can I quote you as saying that that there are no physically known cases of the baptism of desire in the present times(2016)? 
Lionel Andrades



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 - 3
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/07/straw-man-arguments-of-baptism-of_20.html


Straw man arguments of baptism of desire (BOD) with reference to extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) when there are no BOD cases - 3

CONTINUED
Lionel: So when you attend Mass, LG 16 ( invincible ignorance) is an exception to EENS. So Vatican Council II contradicts EENS for you? This is your ecclesiology at Holy Mass. This is your faith.
My faith at Mass is different.Ecclesiology is different. It is traditional, irrespective of the Rite
 
John 2: We are bound by the dogmas of the faith, not by the non-dogmatic teachings of Vatican II.
Lionel: So when you attend Mass, LG 16 ( invincible ignorance) is an exception to EENS. So Vatican Council II contradicts EENS for you? I repeat the question which has not been answered.
________________________________

 Invincible ignorance is not an exception to EENS.
Lionel: You mean there are no physically visible cases of someone saved in invincible ignorance and without or with the baptism of water.So it is not an exception to EENS.

Neither would UR 3 be an exception to EENS?
Louie Verrecchio's Profile Photo
Una Voce Reflection on Vatican II
As mentioned, the “letter” of the Council is all-too-often irreconcilable with the true Faith.
Consider, for example, that ecumenists who treat the practitioners of false religion, not as persons who stand in need of conversion to the Holy Catholic faith, but rather as those whose heretical community is being used by Christ as a “means of salvation” (UR 3), can also reasonably claim recourse to the Council’s “letter.”
Therefore, Una Voce should avoid lending credence to the notion that the “letter” of the Council is reliable.-Louie Verrechio 1
For me UR 3 is reconcilable with the true Faith, with the dogma EENS and the Syllabus of Errors.Also for you? For Verrechio there are explicit cases of someone being saved in 'imperfect communion with the Church'. There are none for me.
__________________

 Your claim would certainly be news to the anti-modernist Pope Pius IX, who explicitly taught that one could be joined to the Church by supernatural faith and perfect charity, while being ignorant of the Catholic Church.
Lionel: One is joined to the Church with supernatural faith and perfect charity and the baptism of water.If with these conditions you say someone has the baptism of desire too and is saved I would not object.
_____________________________

 Any Thomist would concede the same, since it is God who infuses these supernatural virtues in the soul, according to His divine and eternal decrees.
Lionel: Yes I agree with you  but this is not the issue here.
_____________________________

 Indeed, our faith and ecclesiology are different. Mine is Thomist and Tridentine. Yours is of your own making.
Lionel: In my ecclesiology all need to enter the Church in 2016 and there are no physical exceptions.
In your ecclesiology you seem to say all need to enter the Church in 2016 except for cases of the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance. In other words , they are physically known.
______________________________
 
 
John: Because you cannot refute the foregoing, your cause has come to an end.
Lionel: What is my cause? I am affirming the dogma EENS ,with no visible, no known exceptions in 2016. I am affirming the baptism of desire which will include the baptism of water, since this is the dogmatic teaching and since it is invisible it does not contradict
EENS.
 
John 2: Perfect, Lionel. If the teaching "the baptism of desire includes the baptism of water" is, in your words, "a dogmatic teaching," then please produce the dogmatic definition. It's as simple as that. Cut and paste the dogmatic definition, and cite the Pope and/or council, who dogmatically declared that baptism of desire absolutely, necessarily and always is followed by baptism of water before death. If you cannot produce the definition, then this dialogue is over.

Lionel:
Extraordinary Magisterium

Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215): “One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful outside which no one at all is saved…”
Pope Boniface VIII in his Papal Bull Unam Sanctam (A.D. 1302): “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (A.D. 1438 – 1445): “[The most Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart `into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt. 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
http://catholicism.org/eens-popes.html

These three definitions of outside the Church there is no salvation says that the baptism of water in the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation.One has to remain n the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. One cannot choose to remain in the Church with the baptism of desire.So the reference here is to physical baptism of water.
So when I say that the desire for the baptism of water of a catechumen,who allegedly dies before receiving it, has to be followed by the baptism of water, I am referring to this de fide teaching.
Secondly we humans cannot know of any catechumen who died before he received the baptism of water and was saved. This is a strawman. It has been part of a campaign by the enemies of the Church. So when the popes and saints refer to it, it is in response to their questions as part of their campaign against the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
I say all need the baptism of water in the Catholic Church based on Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14).All, would include the hypothetical cases of those  who have that precious desire, of the hypothetical catechumen.

Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."-Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II.

This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church.-Lumen Gentium 14
______________________________________
 

Lionel: I affirm the Nicene Creed and the Athanasius Creed, I affirm the Catechism(1995) in which I interpret hypothetical cases as just being hypothetical.
So I support my view with magisterial documents interpreted rationally.
 
John 2: But you don't affirm the dogmatic teaching of the council of Trent, her catechism and the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas, which all addressed BOD explicitly, unlike Nicea and the Athanasian Creed.
Lionel: Again I will not go in circles only because you will not define your terms in a dialogue.
1.You mean the liberal theologians and the SSPX assume the reference to BOD by the popes and saints, is explicit.
2.You agree ( or have not denied in the past) that none of them specifically mentioned an objective, explicit BOD.
3.You have also agreed in this e-mail that the BOD is invisible; it is not physically  visible to us . So an invisible case to the naked eye; a physically invisible case, cannot be an exception to all needing to formally enter the Church ( with faith and baptism) to avoid Hell.
The Nicene Creed and the Athanasius Creed do not mention the baptism of desire.Instead explicit- baptism of desire contradicts the Nicene Creed ( I believe in one baptism...) and the Athanasius Creed ( Outside the Church there is no salvation).
__________________________________________

 So if you want to be "rational," Lionel, then "view" the "Magisterial documents" that actually address BOD, as well as the teaching of St. Thomas.
Lionel: I address them. I accept BOD wherever it is mentioned. Since I am rational I say I cannot physically see any BOD case. I assume you are saying the same thing.For St.Thomas Aquinas too, BOD  would be invisible. This would be a rational observation.

However when Louie Verrecchio, Una Voce and liberal ecumenists assume UR 3 ( see above) contradicts the dogma EENS and the Syllabus of Errors, is this rational for you? A rational interpretation?
__________________________________________
 
Lionel: You ,the SSPX and the sedevacantists cannot say the same. You can get away with heresy and irrationality since you are supported by the present liberal magisterium, which opposes the pre Council of Trent magisterium which did not state that BOD cases are explicit in our reality.
 
John 2: Lionel, since St. Thomas Aquinas explicitly taught that BOD joins one to the Church for salvation, are you then saying that the Universal Doctor of the Church was a heretic?
Lionel: Again you are conducting a dialogue without defining your terms.St. Thomas Aquinas explictly taught that BOD was objective and so joins one to the Church or did St. Thomas Aquinas explicitly teach that BOD is implict Always, it is known only to God. and so hypothetically, speculatively there could be a non explicit case known only to God ?
________________________________________

 In your words, "be precise." "Be specific." Was St. Thomas a heretic?
Lionel: He is not a heretic.Since he did not say that there were objective explicit exceptions to the dogma EENS. Liberals have to infer it.The conclusion is non traditional, modernistic and heretical.
Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops overlooked this modernism.We now have offically approved heresy of the magisterium, supported with a straight face, by traditionalists.
-Lionel Andrades

SUMMARY
1. So when you attend Mass, LG 16 ( invincible ignorance) is an exception to EENS. So Vatican Council II contradicts EENS for you?

2. Would UR 3 be an exception to EENS?

3.For Louie Verrechio there are explicit cases of someone being saved in 'imperfect communion with the Church' (UR 3). So he is critical of UR 3?

4.In your ecclesiology all need to enter the Church in 2016 except for cases of the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance?

5. We humans cannot know of any catechumen who died before he received the baptism of water and was saved ?

6.The Nicene Creed and the Athanasius Creed do not mention the baptism of desire ?

7.When Louie Verrecchio, Una Voce and liberal ecumenists assume UR 3 ( see above) contradicts the dogma EENS and the Syllabus of Errors, is this rational for you? A rational interpretation?

8.Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops overlooked this modernism i.e physically explicit for us baptism of desire which is an exeption to  the dogma EENS?

1.
https://akacatholic.com/una-voce-reflection-on-vatican-ii/


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

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/07/straw-man-arguments-of-baptism-of.html


 

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
__________

Straw man arguments of baptism of desire (BOD) with reference to extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) when there are no BOD cases - 1

John: I addressed your errors already.
Lionel: What is the error ?Please be precise
John 2: I said errors, in the plural, because they are many. For starters:
1. Your claim that BOD does not join one to the Church for salvation, contrary to the teaching of the council of Trent, its catechism, and many other authorities.
Lionel: I am saying that you can believe the baptism of desire (BOD) joins one to the Church or the St. Benedict Centers can believe that it joins one to the Church with the baptism of water.I Lionel, however is saying that  BOD has nothing to do with the dogma EENS since it is always invisible for us in present times and in the past.
You still will not make the invisible-visible distinction and are going in circles.
I am not going to get into all your straw man arguments of BOD with relation to EENs when there are no BOD cases.
_____________________________________

2. Your claim that BOD is necessarily and always followed by the water, even though you cannot point to a single Magisterial statement supporting same.
Lionel: This is important for you and the SSPX and the SBC.
When I say that the dogma EENS and Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) says all need the baptism of water, it is not enough for you.O.K, EENS and Vatican Council II is not acceptable for you.It is the same with the liberals.
_______________________________________

3. Your claim that water baptism is an absolute, and not just a relative necessity, contrary to the entire Tradition of the Church.
Lionel: The entire Tradition of the Church for centuries made this claim based upon John 3:5, Mk.16:16 and the dogma EENS defined by three Church Councils.
_______________________________________

4. Your claim that if something is invisible to humans means it does not exist in reality, contrary to logic, metaphysics, theology and other disciplines.
Lionel: Good point. According to your logic and metaphysics the baptism of desire cases are invisible and they exist in your reality!
This is why it has been difficult entering into a dialogue. Since our reality, our logic and concept of metaphysics is different.
We first have to agree on what is reality and then we can begin a dialogue.I know your intentions are good but this is our reality.
______________________________________

5. Your claim that the pre-conciliar Church did not teach that BOD joined one to the Church (which we disprove in our book).
Lionel: Since our reality is different and you do not make the explicit-implicit distinction you can misunderstand or not understand me here.
Are you referring to BOD visible or invisible in 2016 in the USA? You need to define your terms to avoid confusion.
You know my concept of BOD it is always invisible for me. It is not an objective case in 2016.This is my reality.
______________________________________

6. Your claim that the post-conciliar Church "authoritatively" contradicted the pre-conciliar Church on BOD.
Lionel: Yes.This seems obvious for me since the post Council of Trent Church interprets BOD as being explicit and an exception to EENS.They now even interpret EENs and Vatican Council II with this irrationality. So when I go for Mass, EENS and Vatican Council II are in harmony but when you and others are at Mass it is a different faith.For me your position and that of the contemporary magisterium is heretical.
You have to pretend that the pre Council of Trent magisterium also interpreted EENS like you, that is, there are exceptions of the baptism of desire etc - since these cases are explicit and objective to be exceptions, even though they are in Heaven!
____________________________________

7. Your rejection of St. Thomas Aquinas, the Universal Doctor of the Church, on BOD, not to mention countless other saints, doctors and Popes.
Lionel: I make the distinction between BOD explicit and implicit, objective and hypothetical.St. Thomas Aquinas supports my view since he affirmed the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.He held the strict interpretation of EENs.
The liberal theologians interpret his reference to the man in the forest in ignorance, as being a known case and an exception to St. Thomas' traditional understanding of EENs. This is the SSPX and your position too.
For me, St. Thomas Aquinas' man in the forest is always a hypthetical case and so is not relevant to his interpretation of EENs. He himself says that if God is to save that person he would send a preacher.
For you the man in the forest in invincible ignorance is an explicit case. So you would assume that St. Thomas contradicts my 'rigorist' position on EENS.
_____________________________________

8. Your rejection of the Church's canonization of St. Emerentiana as a catechumen, and not as among the baptized members of the Church.
Lionel: I do not reject the canonisation.
I reject the inference that she is in Heaven without the baptism of water and so contradicts the dogma EENs. Since no one on earth could have physically seen  her in Heaven saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. No one on earth could have known if God had sent a preacher to her to have her baptised( Aquinas) or have her sent back to earth only to be baptised( St. Francis Xavier).
______________________________________

Was that precise enough for you?
Lionel: No. Please re-formulate these points clarifying if you mean the BOD is objective or hypothetical, known in the present times or unknown, visible or invisible.
Then you would be precise.
______________________________________

John: You have created a straw man to knock down and then claim victory.
Lionel:What is the straw man please be specific.
John2: Sure, your straw man is your claim that because we cannot see BOD cases (we can't see the soul), they do not exist, and then claim victory because we concede that we cannot actually see BOD in someone's soul.
Lionel: So you agree or do not agree with me here. You cannot see the soul and you cannot see a physical case of BOD. If BOD is relevant or an exception to EENS, there would have to be a physical case.It would have to be seen and known by people. Someone who does not exist in human reality cannot be an exception or even relevant to EENS.
This is simple reasoning. I have quoted you Cartholic relgious and lay people supporting me here.Why do you call this a straw man?
Even a non Catholic would agree with me here?
-Lionel Andrades

SUMMARY
1.Does the baptism of desire refer to physically invisible cases for you ?
2. Would they always physically invisible to the naked eye even in the past?
 
 
CONTINUED