Thursday, July 21, 2016

Have you noticed that physically visible or invisible BOD here has produced two different conclusions in the interpretation of Vatican Council II


To be honest, I am at a loss to understand your reasoning. There seems to be a lot of problems with it.  Reality is not limited to what we can see.  For example, have you ever seen an angel, or sanctifying grace?  If not, why do you believe they exist?  You believe it because the Church teaches it. 
Lionel:Yes in faith we accept this.This is the traditional teaching of the Church.

 But the Church also teaches that a person can be saved without water baptism. If you believe this teaching is incompatible with the Catholic Faith (contrary to EENS), then you must accuse the Church of leading people into error, since it teaches that they can.
Lionel: Yes I have referred to magisterial heresy which contradicts what the Church taught over the centuries. When you'll blame Vatican Council II for contradicting Tradition, the SSPX and the sedevacantists are saying the same thing as me.Only I am pointing my finger at the exact cause of this break with Tradition.

  And if you concede the theology, but then argue that no such cases actually exists, and that if one holds that such a case does exist, they are heretics (because their position is contrary to ENS), then you are again accusing the Church of leading people into error, since the Church explicitly teaches that people CAN be saved by BOD.
Lionel: The theology, the new theology is in error since it is based on explicit exceptions to EENS.The magisterium accepted this error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.

'... how can you say what our position is?  ...(on)... the Church's theology, quoting the Fathers, Popes, catechisms and theological manuals (all of which are perfectly consistent). 
Lionel: The theological manuals,catechisms and popes are interpreted with the new theology which has a fault and is not traditional.The interpretation is based on physically visible baptism of desire (BOD)  and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I).Indirectly I know that this is your theology. The questions in red ( summary) were not answered.This was a give away.We have a pro-SSPX layman, a traditionalist, who in public is not willing to say that there are no physically visible BOD cases in 2016.This is further confirmation of the error.

 The idea that there has to be "physically visible" cases of individuals being saved by BOD, and that if there are not physically visible cases, it has never happened, is not a good argument. 
Lionel: It is not an argument. It is not theology.
It is a physical description of our reality.It is about the physical laws of nature.It is about agreeing upon Newtons Laws of physics.It refers to our common understanding of the laws of light, movement, mass, velocity.It is agreeing upon a given.
The Buddhists and Hindus may not have my faith in Purgatory.However the Buddhists and Hindus would agree with my physical description of reality, the physical laws of nature.They are common to all people.
To suggest that BOD is relevant or an exception to EENS (Letter of the Holy Office 1949) would infer that there are physically known cases of persons saved in 2016 with the baptism of desire. Otherwise how would BOD be relevant to EENS. This would contradict the laws of nature which are common to all people. How can someone say that the BOD is an exception to EENS, or that every one needs to enter the Church except for persons with the baptism of desire(BOD)? Since this infers that we can physically see these persons in Heaven or on earth.This is contrary to the physical laws of nature which are common for Catholics and non Catholics.

 Can you provide a physically visible case of a person in hell, purgatory or Limbo?  If not, why do you believe anyone has ever gone to heaven, purgatory or Limbo?
Lionel: In faith I believe this.I believe this with Catholic faith.
But I cannot believe that there is a physically known baptism of desire.Since according to the laws of nature we cannot see such a case.I am not compelled to accept this irrationality even as a Catholic.
As a Catholic I need to admit that this is a falsehood and is a deception.
As an honest Catholic, would you agree that there are no physically known cases of BOD and I.I in 2016 and could you say so in public? Can I quote you?

Lastly, I am pretty sure you hold the position you do because you believe that if a person was saved by BOD it would constitute an "exception" to EENS.
Lionel:  It would not constitute an exception to EENs for me since I do not know of any physically visible BOD case.BOD is always invisible for me so it is not an exception to the dogma EENS.
Similarly, UR 3 is not an exception to  EENS for me, as it is for Louie Verrecchio.

  But that is not correct either.  The Church does not understand EENS as meaning that a person has to be a card carrying Catholics. 
Lionel: Agreed.This is the contemporary Church's position. It is based on physically visible BOD and I.I ( invincible ignorance) all without the baptism of water.Since there is physically visible BOD every one does not have to be a card carrying member of the Church, as you indicate.

 All that is required is that they are joined to the Church, either perfectly (as a card carrying Catholic), or imperfectly...
Lionel: Only hypothetically, speculatively both could suffice.Defacto, every one needs to enter the Church with faith and baptism and to remain in it.Since there are no physically known BOD or I.I cases in real life to contradict the de fide teaching on all needing to be visible members of the Church; all needing faith and baptism.They both are visible in their expression.They can be checked and repeated, defacto.

I was thinking about your e-mails last night.  Here is what I think your position should be.  You should says, "based on the Church's theology, it is possible for a person to be saved without water baptism, but I don't think it has ever happened."  If you say that, I would not argue with you, even though there are cases on saints who died as catechumens. But if you claim that the notion that some individuals have been saved by BOD is heretical, then you are implicitly accusing the Church of leading people into error, since it explicitly teaches that people can be saved in this fashion.
Lionel: Yes I am saying that the contemporary Church is leading Catholics astray since their new theology is based on physically visible BOD and I.I.
We can check out this  error in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
1. If I assume that  BOD and I.I are not physically visible in 2016 then they are not exceptions to the dogma EENs on exclusive salvation in the Church.Since there are no exceptions all need to visibly and formally enter the Church.This is my position. This is how I interpret Vatican Council II.
2. When you and the cardinals and bishops of the Vatican Curia in 2016, assume that BOD (Lumen Gentium 14) 1 and Invincible ignorance ( Lumen Gentium 16) are physically visible in 2016 in known persons then they are exceptions to the dogma EENS on exclusive salvation in the Church.So all do not need to visibly enter the Church.
For Louie Verrecchio for example, UR 3 contradicts the traditional teachings on the one, true faith.

Have you noticed that physically visible or invisible BOD here has produced two different conclusions in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
So one of the two interpretations(1 or 2) has an error.They both cannot be correct.
One premise and conclusion is wrong.
One of the two interpretations is that of the Church, the contemporary Church.

Lastly,...a little-known story of a person who was saved by BOD, and the Cure of Ars was involved in it.  And this person was a Jew who had definitely not been baptized. 
Lionel: Hypothetically a Jew can be saved in his religion. When he is in Heaven he would be a Catholic.God would have sent a preacher to him( St. Thomas Aquinas) or have him baptised after he dies( St. Francis Xavier).So this case would not be telling us that there is salvation outside the Church, or that there are exceptions to the dogma EENS.In Heaven there are only Catholics.-Lionel Andrades
Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.-Lumen Gentium 14

SSPX lay supporter is now not sure if we can physically see baptism of desire cases in 2016

I have heard from the SSPX lay supporter with whom I have been having these discussions over the last few weeks via the Internet. It is clear to him that we physically cannot see cases of the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance without the baptism of water.Even if they exist they are known only to God.They are not part of our reality.But he does not want to be quoted.
So I asked him if I should quote him saying that physically we can see cases of the baptism of desire in 2016. I am waiting for his answer.
For me the hypothetical case of the desire for the baptism of water by an unknown catechumen who dies before receiving it and was saved  was never relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).It was a straw man from the beginning. It was part of a campaign by the enemies of the Church to eliminate the dogma EENS.They were successful. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1995) refers to EENS not as a dogma but an 'aphorism'(CCC 846)!The new theology of Rahner-Ratzinger is based on physically known baptism of desire.So this means there is salvation outside the Church and the dogma no more exists.
But all is not lost.
Being aware, that there are no physically visible cases of the baptism of desire(BOD) we can correct  Vatican Council II interpreted with the new theology.This is something which should have been done by the CDF but we cannot expect it from them any more.The Vatican Curia is officially teaching error, magisterial heresy,and Catholics are not correcting them on this point.Even this lay traditionalist, a supporter of the SSPX, is not willing to say in public that physically there are not known cases of BOD.

Louie Verrecchio, another traditionalist, who interprets Vatican Council II with physically known BOD and being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I),can reverse his position.Even if liberal ecumenists assume UR 3 means there is salvation outside the Church he can affirm UR 3 refers not to physically known cases in 2016.Let them interpret it as they want to but Louie can speak for himself.In public he could say that UR 3 does not refer to a physically known case.
Then Vatican Council II, UR 3 would refer to invisible cases.So UR 3 would not be an exception to Tradition.It  would not contradict EENS and the Syllabus of Errors.This should be his rational and traditional position with reference to UR 3. UR 3 is not an example of salvation outside the Church even though the ecumenists assume it is.

Similarly John Salza and Robert Siscoe in their book on sedevacantism assume there is a physically known BOD and I.I without the baptism of water.They could clarify that this was a mistake.There is no known salvation outside the Church.There are no physically known cases of I.I (Lumen Gentium 16) in 2016.
EENS is a de fide teaching and we cannot know of any exception  to the dogma. There cannot be any known salvation outiside the Church. LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc do not contradict the dogma EENS and the Syllabus of Errors.
1.So Vatican Council II dogmatically is not teaching anything new, it is affirming EENS according to to the 16th century missionaries and Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.
2.This would be asking the SSPX and the sedevacantists to review their doctrinal position on Vatican Council II.Since Vatican Council II would now be saying outside the Church there is no known salvation. It would not be saying as is generally thought that outside the Church there are known exceptions and UR 3 is a reference to it.
3.There is no known salvation outside the Church i.e there are no exceptions of physically known cases of BOD and invincible ignorance(I.I), or seeds of the Word(AG 11) or elements of sanctification and truth (LG 8) etc.
4.It was a mistake for Vatican Council II to mention BOD and I.I which is superflous.At most they could be hypothetical, speculative cases.
5.So the ecclessiology of Vatican Council II is really traditional. It is calling for an ecumenism of return and the need for non Christians  and non Catholics to convert into the Church to avoid Hell(AG 7, LG 14).
All Catholics could affirm Vatican Council II with physically invisible BOD and I.I. They are not visible to the naked eye.
In this way there will be harmony between the pre and post Vatican Council II ecclesiology.Presently the ecclesiology of Pope Benedict, for example, is a clear break with St.Robert Bellarmine,St. Francis Xavier,St. Francis of Assisi, St. Teresa of Avila, St.Maximillain Kolbe and most of the founders of the religious communities.They use the hemeneutic of rupture since they assume that BOD and I.I are physically known in the present times(2016).
-Lionel Andrades
 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?