Their faith and my faith : people of 'the other faith' appealing to the pope here.
I have e-mailed the faculty at the Sacred Heart Seminary, Detroit posts from my blog Eucharist and Mission on the debate between Bishop Sanborn and Dr.Robert Fastiggi, professor of theology at SHS.I invited their comments.This is quite some time back. I had also sent reports to the Rector of the Seminary. Also to Ralph Martin on the faculty. Martin's book was displayed by Christine Niles on a Download program.But that book has a flaw. It assumes that hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire and blood, and being saved in invncible ignorance refer to objective cases in the present times. Then it is further assumed that these cases exclude the baptism of water.Then it is concluded by Ralph Martin that these hypothetical cases are exceptions to the traditional teaching on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. So Ralph Martin does not affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus nor Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.Neither does those who make this plea to the popes.
How can we know of someone saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church in 2016 ?. How could any one in the past also know of someone saved without the baptism of water, who would be an exception to EENS, in the present times. For example how could Cardinal Francesco Marchetti who issued the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 assume that the baptism of desire as a known case, explicitly visible without the baptism of water, for it to be an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS?. He could not know!If there was such a case it would only be known to God.
The book was praised by the Archbishop Augustine Di Noia at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's Ecclesia Dei. Di Noia when asked about extra ecclesiam nulla salus, by Edward Pentin, in an interview, said he knows of some Protestants/Anglicans who will be going to Heaven outside the Church.How is this possible? How can he know someone who will not commit a mortal sin before death,Catholic or Protestant?. How can we judge the soul of someone and say he will be going to Heaven without entering the Catholic Church or he has gone to Heaven without being a Catholic ? So it was understandable that Di Noia would read Martin's books since both of them were using philosophical subjectivism.They were judging invisible cases of the baptism of desire which is impossible. Then then conclude that these cases are known in real life and would be exceptions to traditional EENS. TWO FAITHS AT MASS So now we have two faiths at Holy Mass.We have Archbishop Di Noia, Ralph Martin, Dr. Fastiggi and the Rector of the seminary attending Holy Mass assuming there are exceptions to EENS, while I attend Mass knowng there are no explicit exceptions to EENS. These are examples of two different belief systems. Differences in doctrine. Differences in Catholic faith at the same Mass. Then they all assume that Vatican Council II (LG 16 etc) is a break with the dogma EENS while I assume it is not.Again we see differences in doctrine. It is the same liturgy that we can both attend but our faith is different. They interpret EENS and Vatican Council II with the premise of hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire being explicit in 2016 while I avoid this premise. So is it the same Catholic faith? No. Their position reflects the innovation in the Church, from the second part of the Letter(1949) which has been accepted by the contemporary magisterium.My position reflects the first part of the Letter ( 1949) which is a continuation of the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS, according to the pre-Council of Trent magisterium. If they avoid the premise and the non traditional conclusion they could attend Mass with the old faith, with my faith. Similarly there is the faith of John Henry Weston and those who make this appeal and there is my faith. -Lionel Andrades
An apostate cannot be a true pope. Pleading with a man who is a liar and a deceiver to be what he is not is fruitless. Pray to God and to our Holy Mother, Mary, to either convert him, or send him to a monastery for the remainder of his life.
For example how could Cardinal Francesco Marchetti who issued the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 assume that the baptism of desire as a known case, explicitly visible without the baptism of water, for it to be an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS?. He could not know!If there was such a case it would only be known to God.
Put Saint Emerentiana in your apostate pipe and smoke it. She was seen being killed and she was not Baptized and The cardinal knew that because he was a faithful Catholic and you are not.
Your personal obsession with its novel inclusion of claims about seeing this or that is a denial of Catholic truth (you can not cite one single sentence of any magisterial document referencing your delusion) is quite sad and you should consult a catholic therapist and consider medication.
Anonymous Anonymous said... For example how could Cardinal Francesco Marchetti who issued the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 assume that the baptism of desire as a known case, explicitly visible without the baptism of water, for it to be an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS?. He could not know!If there was such a case it would only be known to God.
Put Saint Emerentiana in your apostate pipe and smoke it. She was seen being killed and she was not Baptized and The cardinal knew that because he was a faithful Catholic and you are not. Lionel: She could have received the baptism of water after she died. St. Francis Xavier and the saints tell us that many people returned from the dead only to be baptised. God would have sent a preacher to her to be baptised ( St.Thomas Aquinas). She was seen being killed and how do we know she was not baptised. How do we know that the Good Thief on the Cross was not baptised, as it is common assumed. How could Cardinal Marchetti know that the baptism of desire was an exception to the Feneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? He personally did not know of any such explicit case and St.Emerentina's case could not be an exception to the Feneeyite interpretation of EENS in 1949.The St. Emerenentiana cannot be a physically visible case in 2016. So how can she be relevant or an exception to EENS in 2016? ___________________________________
Your personal obsession with its novel inclusion of claims about seeing this or that is a denial of Catholic truth Lionel: The Letter of the Holy Office 1949's claim of the baptism of desire being an exception to the dogma EENS; is an issue about seeing people in Heaven without the baptism of water. This cannot be rational or Catholic. _________________________________
(you can not cite one single sentence of any magisterial document referencing your delusion) Lionel: The delusion is there in the magisterial documents and I am only pointing it out. The delusion is there in the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. The delusion is there in Lumen Gentium 14 and Ad Gentes 7 which mention the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance with reference to orthodox passages which support the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The delusion is there in the Catechism of the Catholic Church's 1257 which says all need the baptism of water for salvation but some do not .This is contrary to the Principle of Non Contraduction and is not the teaching of the magisterium before the Council of Trent.
is quite sad and you should consult a catholic therapist and consider medication
Lionel: We are living in un precedented times in the Church with the magisterium teaching heresy and the traditionalists and sedevacatists remainging clueless I wonder how many people must have lost their faith and need medication.
There is the rub in what I write since even the great Archbishop Lefebvre overlooked a modernistic teaching.The opponents of modernism were not aware of modernism and supported it. -Lionel Andrades
She could have received the baptism of water after she died. St. Francis Xavier and the saints tell us that many people returned from the dead only to be baptised.
Bang, ace. You walked right into a straight right, just like I knew you would.
You are always arguing we can't believe thus and such because it was not seen but now you argue that what was not seen is what we must believe..
HYPOCRITE!!!!!!!!!
The funny thing is you will not understand what I just wrote :)
It is small wonder you are a feeneyite for the poor man went bonkers in his protestant judgment and he got so whacked that he had his slaves raising children comunally in Still River, Mass and those children were rarely allowed to see their parents. Can you say, CULT!!!!
Feeney also taught this: “To say that God would never permit anyone to be punished eternally unless he had incurred the guilt of voluntary sin is nothing short of Pelagianism... . If God cannot punish eternally a human being who has not incurred the guilt of voluntary sin, how then, for example can He punish eternally babies who die unbaptized?”
Punished eternally without incurring voluntary guilt. That is Calvinism, Ace, and that is YOUR God, not mine.
Here is Aquinas:
St. Thomas Aquinas
Summa Theologica Part II. Question 66. Article 11
. . . a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentence."
"The other two Baptisms are included in the Baptism of Water, which derives its efficacy, both from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost. Consequently for this reason the unity of Baptism is not destroyed." "The other two. however, are like the Baptism of Water, not, indeed, in the nature of sign, but in the baptismal effect. Consequently they are not Sacraments.”
You are outside the Church and so ironies abound when you shriek that those outside the church are going to Hell.
Do you ever read what you write?
The Council of Trent infallibly taught what you daily deny, thus you are ANATHEMA
Thursday 07-21-2016 ON JUSTIFICATION FIRST DECREE Celebrated on the thirteenth day of the month of January, 1547.
CHAPTER IV.
A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace. By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
CANON XXXIII.-If any one saith,that,by the Catholic doctrine touching Justification, by this holy Synod inset forth in this present decree, the glory of God, or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ are in any way derogated from, and not rather that the truth of our faith, and the glory in fine of God and of Jesus Christ are rendered (more) illustrious; let him be anathema.
Repent while you still have time, Lionel, and stop driving readers of Catholic Blogs crazy with your heresies. You know how many have banned you...get a clue
Bishop Schneider, John Henry Weston ambiguous : 'speak the truth of the Catholic faith, to end doctrinal confusion, to restore clarity'
According to John Henry Weston of LifeSites News, international life and family advocates are asking Pope Francis in a new video 1 to unambiguously speak the truth of the Catholic faith, to end doctrinal confusion, to restore clarity... For years now that I have been asking Weston 'to speak the truth of the Catholic faith, to end doctrinal confusion, to restore clarity...'. He can not do it. Since he has to protect his reputation among Protestants with whom he works.There is also the hostile Leftist environment in the USA where he works and he needs to appeal for funds. Perhaps Pope Francis could be saying the same thing. He is promoting doctrinal confusion in faith and morals to please the Left and to protect his reputation and the Vatican's interests. All the speakers on this video are ambigous on Catholic doctrine related to salvation.If they are honest they would be considered rigorist, right wing, fanatical, anti semitic, backward...Some are ambiguous after being informed others are ambiguous in ignorance. Bishop Athansius Schneider and John Henry Weston are ambiguous with full knowledge.-Lionel Andrades
1. Their faith and my faith : Life Site News: Plea to the Pope video http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/07/their-faith-and-my-faith-life-site-news.html
Lionel. You do not know what'n'hell you are talking about and saying "Aquinas agrees with me" is such a perfect comment by you that is an apotheosis of all you have ever claimed and all you ever will claim.
O but as a parting shot, I can't resist this.
Here are your words from your blog:
Lionel: Consequently they are not Sacraments! They are not known. They are not visible. They are not repeatable like the baptism of water
Um, Mr. EENS, Baptism is NOT repeatable.
But, you know better than all of the former Saints, Popes, Infallible Councils, Universal Catechisms, the Praxis of orthodox Ecclesiastical History, and Sacred Tradition and so I am the last man who could convince you that you are wrong but, from time to time, such an impossible task is fun to undertake not only for my own amusement but for the edification of lurkers.
Lionel: The physical action of baptism is repeatable. It is visible.It is concrete. It can be seen. The baptism of desire is not visible it is not repatable.It is not concrete in our reality. The catechumen who dies before he receives the baptism of water and is saved is a non existing case for us.Unless of course, someone saw him personally in Heaven in this exceptional condition.
_____________________________
But, you know better than all of the former Saints, Popes, Infallible Councils, Universal Catechisms, the Praxis of orthodox Ecclesiastical History, and Sacred Tradition Lionel: None of them have stated that the catechumen who desired... was a person personally known.They speculated with good will that he could be saved, they hoped he could be saved. It was Cardinal Gobbons in Baltimore and Cardinal Cushing in Boston who assumed that this now famous catechumen, was known in personal cases and his condition was a true baptism like the baptism of water and he was a concrete exception to the dogma EENS. ___________________________
and so I am the last man who could convince you that you are wrong but,
Lionel: Why should I be wrong affirming EENS and implicit for us baptism of desire and blood,implicit for us being saved in invincible ignorance and seeds of the Word and invisble and hypothetical for us imperfect communion with the Church...just as they did before Cardinal Gibbons was born. _____________________________
from time to time, such an impossible task is fun to undertake not only for my own amusement but for the edification of lurkers
Lionel: Having to repeat traditional teachings without the fantasy theology which is common is a work I continue patiently.One day, in my life time, or after I am dead, the seeds will have borne fruit. -Lionel Andrades
Their faith and my faith : people of 'the other faith' appealing to the pope here.
ReplyDeleteI have e-mailed the faculty at the Sacred Heart Seminary, Detroit posts from my blog Eucharist and Mission on the debate between Bishop Sanborn and Dr.Robert Fastiggi, professor of theology at SHS.I invited their comments.This is quite some time back. I had also sent reports to the Rector of the Seminary. Also to Ralph Martin on the faculty.
Martin's book was displayed by Christine Niles on a Download program.But that book has a flaw.
It assumes that hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire and blood, and being saved in invncible ignorance refer to objective cases in the present times. Then it is further assumed that these cases exclude the baptism of water.Then it is concluded by Ralph Martin that these hypothetical cases are exceptions to the traditional teaching on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
So Ralph Martin does not affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus nor Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.Neither does those who make this plea to the popes.
How can we know of someone saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church in 2016 ?. How could any one in the past also know of someone saved without the baptism of water, who would be an exception to EENS, in the present times. For example how could Cardinal Francesco Marchetti who issued the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 assume that the baptism of desire as a known case, explicitly visible without the baptism of water, for it to be an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS?. He could not know!If there was such a case it would only be known to God.
The book was praised by the Archbishop Augustine Di Noia at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's Ecclesia Dei. Di Noia when asked about extra ecclesiam nulla salus, by Edward Pentin, in an interview, said he knows of some Protestants/Anglicans who will be going to Heaven outside the Church.How is this possible? How can he know someone who will not commit a mortal sin before death,Catholic or Protestant?. How can we judge the soul of someone and say he will be going to Heaven without entering the Catholic Church or he has gone to Heaven without being a Catholic ?
So it was understandable that Di Noia would read Martin's books since both of them were using philosophical subjectivism.They were judging invisible cases of the baptism of desire which is impossible. Then then conclude that these cases are known in real life and would be exceptions to traditional EENS.
TWO FAITHS AT MASS
So now we have two faiths at Holy Mass.We have Archbishop Di Noia, Ralph Martin, Dr. Fastiggi and the Rector of the seminary attending Holy Mass assuming there are exceptions to EENS, while I attend Mass knowng there are no explicit exceptions to EENS. These are examples of two different belief systems. Differences in doctrine. Differences in Catholic faith at the same Mass.
Then they all assume that Vatican Council II (LG 16 etc) is a break with the dogma EENS while I assume it is not.Again we see differences in doctrine. It is the same liturgy that we can both attend but our faith is different.
They interpret EENS and Vatican Council II with the premise of hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire being explicit in 2016 while I avoid this premise.
So is it the same Catholic faith? No.
Their position reflects the innovation in the Church, from the second part of the Letter(1949) which has been accepted by the contemporary magisterium.My position reflects the first part of the Letter ( 1949) which is a continuation of the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS, according to the pre-Council of Trent magisterium.
If they avoid the premise and the non traditional conclusion they could attend Mass with the old faith, with my faith.
Similarly there is the faith of John Henry Weston and those who make this appeal and there is my faith.
-Lionel Andrades
"More pleas..."
ReplyDelete"More, please, to the pope" would be disastrous.
If you want to keep the E, need to change the title to "Less, please, to the pope."
LOL.
Keep up the good work.
DJR
An apostate cannot be a true pope.
ReplyDeleteAn apostate cannot be a true pope. Pleading with a man who is a liar and a deceiver to be what he is not is fruitless. Pray to God and to our Holy Mother, Mary, to either convert him, or send him to a monastery for the remainder of his life.
ReplyDeleteFor example how could Cardinal Francesco Marchetti who issued the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 assume that the baptism of desire as a known case, explicitly visible without the baptism of water, for it to be an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS?. He could not know!If there was such a case it would only be known to God.
ReplyDeletePut Saint Emerentiana in your apostate pipe and smoke it. She was seen being killed and she was not Baptized and The cardinal knew that because he was a faithful Catholic and you are not.
Your personal obsession with its novel inclusion of claims about seeing this or that is a denial of Catholic truth (you can not cite one single sentence of any magisterial document referencing your delusion) is quite sad and you should consult a catholic therapist and consider medication.
ReplyDelete8:36 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
For example how could Cardinal Francesco Marchetti who issued the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 assume that the baptism of desire as a known case, explicitly visible without the baptism of water, for it to be an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS?. He could not know!If there was such a case it would only be known to God.
Put Saint Emerentiana in your apostate pipe and smoke it. She was seen being killed and she was not Baptized and The cardinal knew that because he was a faithful Catholic and you are not.
Lionel:
She could have received the baptism of water after she died. St. Francis Xavier and the saints tell us that many people returned from the dead only to be baptised.
God would have sent a preacher to her to be baptised ( St.Thomas Aquinas).
She was seen being killed and how do we know she was not baptised. How do we know that the Good Thief on the Cross was not baptised, as it is common assumed.
How could Cardinal Marchetti know that the baptism of desire was an exception to the Feneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? He personally did not know of any such explicit case and St.Emerentina's case could not be an exception to the Feneeyite interpretation of EENS in 1949.The St. Emerenentiana cannot be a physically visible case in 2016. So how can she be relevant or an exception to EENS in 2016?
___________________________________
Your personal obsession with its novel inclusion of claims about seeing this or that is a denial of Catholic truth
Lionel: The Letter of the Holy Office 1949's claim of the baptism of desire being an exception to the dogma EENS; is an issue about seeing people in Heaven without the baptism of water. This cannot be rational or Catholic.
_________________________________
(you can not cite one single sentence of any magisterial document referencing your delusion)
Lionel: The delusion is there in the magisterial documents and I am only pointing it out.
The delusion is there in the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
The delusion is there in Lumen Gentium 14 and Ad Gentes 7 which mention the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance with reference to orthodox passages which support the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The delusion is there in the Catechism of the Catholic Church's 1257 which says all need the baptism of water for salvation but some do not .This is contrary to the Principle of Non Contraduction and is not the teaching of the magisterium before the Council of Trent.
is quite sad and you should consult a catholic therapist and consider medication
Lionel: We are living in un precedented times in the Church with the magisterium teaching heresy and the traditionalists and sedevacatists remainging clueless I wonder how many people must have lost their faith and need medication.
There is the rub in what I write since even the great Archbishop Lefebvre overlooked a modernistic teaching.The opponents of modernism were not aware of modernism and supported it.
-Lionel Andrades
She could have received the baptism of water after she died. St. Francis Xavier and the saints tell us that many people returned from the dead only to be baptised.
ReplyDeleteBang, ace. You walked right into a straight right, just like I knew you would.
You are always arguing we can't believe thus and such because it was not seen but now you argue that what was not seen is what we must believe..
HYPOCRITE!!!!!!!!!
The funny thing is you will not understand what I just wrote :)
It is small wonder you are a feeneyite for the poor man went bonkers in his protestant judgment and he got so whacked that he had his slaves raising children comunally in Still River, Mass and those children were rarely allowed to see their parents. Can you say, CULT!!!!
Feeney also taught this: “To say that God would never permit anyone to be punished eternally unless he had incurred the guilt of voluntary sin is nothing short of Pelagianism... . If God cannot punish eternally a human being who has not incurred the guilt of voluntary sin, how then, for example can He punish eternally babies who die unbaptized?”
Punished eternally without incurring voluntary guilt. That is Calvinism, Ace, and that is YOUR God, not mine.
Here is Aquinas:
St. Thomas Aquinas
Summa Theologica Part II. Question 66. Article 11
. . . a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentence."
"The other two Baptisms are included in the Baptism of Water, which derives its efficacy, both from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost. Consequently for this reason the unity of Baptism is not destroyed." "The other two. however, are like the Baptism of Water, not, indeed, in the nature of sign, but in the baptismal effect. Consequently they are not Sacraments.”
You are outside the Church and so ironies abound when you shriek that those outside the church are going to Hell.
Do you ever read what you write?
The Council of Trent infallibly taught what you daily deny, thus you are ANATHEMA
Thursday 07-21-2016
ON JUSTIFICATION
FIRST DECREE
Celebrated on the thirteenth day of the month of January, 1547.
CHAPTER IV.
A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.
By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
CANON XXXIII.-If any one saith,that,by the Catholic doctrine touching Justification, by this holy Synod inset forth in this present decree, the glory of God, or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ are in any way derogated from, and not rather that the truth of our faith, and the glory in fine of God and of Jesus Christ are rendered (more) illustrious; let him be anathema.
Repent while you still have time, Lionel, and stop driving readers of Catholic Blogs crazy with your heresies. You know how many have banned you...get a clue
http://www.baptismofdesire.com
ReplyDeleteThus can only be gainsaid by MR. EENS. It can not be refuted for it is our Catholic Faith which Mr. EENS has abandoned
Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteLionel:
Aquinas agrees with me!
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/07/anonymous-said.html
ReplyDeleteBishop Schneider, John Henry Weston ambiguous : 'speak the truth of the Catholic faith, to end doctrinal confusion, to restore clarity'
According to John Henry Weston of LifeSites News, international life and family advocates are asking Pope Francis in a new video 1 to unambiguously speak the truth of the Catholic faith, to end doctrinal confusion, to restore clarity...
For years now that I have been asking Weston 'to speak the truth of the Catholic faith, to end doctrinal confusion, to restore clarity...'. He can not do it. Since he has to protect his reputation among Protestants with whom he works.There is also the hostile Leftist environment in the USA where he works and he needs to appeal for funds.
Perhaps Pope Francis could be saying the same thing. He is promoting doctrinal confusion in faith and morals to please the Left and to protect his reputation and the Vatican's interests.
All the speakers on this video are ambigous on Catholic doctrine related to salvation.If they are honest they would be considered rigorist, right wing, fanatical, anti semitic, backward...Some are ambiguous after being informed others are ambiguous in ignorance.
Bishop Athansius Schneider and John Henry Weston are ambiguous with full knowledge.-Lionel Andrades
1.
Their faith and my faith : Life Site News: Plea to the Pope video http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/07/their-faith-and-my-faith-life-site-news.html
Lionel. You do not know what'n'hell you are talking about and saying "Aquinas agrees with me" is such a perfect comment by you that is an apotheosis of all you have ever claimed and all you ever will claim.
ReplyDeleteO but as a parting shot, I can't resist this.
Here are your words from your blog:
Lionel: Consequently they are not Sacraments! They are not known. They are not visible. They are not repeatable like the baptism of water
Um, Mr. EENS, Baptism is NOT repeatable.
But, you know better than all of the former Saints, Popes, Infallible Councils, Universal Catechisms, the Praxis of orthodox Ecclesiastical History, and Sacred Tradition and so I am the last man who could convince you that you are wrong but, from time to time, such an impossible task is fun to undertake not only for my own amusement but for the edification of lurkers.
Rock on, Lionel; rock on
Um, Mr. EENS, Baptism is NOT repeatable.
ReplyDeleteLionel:
The physical action of baptism is repeatable. It is visible.It is concrete. It can be seen.
The baptism of desire is not visible it is not repatable.It is not concrete in our reality.
The catechumen who dies before he receives the baptism of water and is saved is a non existing case for us.Unless of course, someone saw him personally in Heaven in this exceptional condition.
_____________________________
But, you know better than all of the former Saints, Popes, Infallible Councils, Universal Catechisms, the Praxis of orthodox Ecclesiastical History, and Sacred Tradition
Lionel:
None of them have stated that the catechumen who desired... was a person personally known.They speculated with good will that he could be saved, they hoped he could be saved.
It was Cardinal Gobbons in Baltimore and Cardinal Cushing in Boston who assumed that this now famous catechumen, was known in personal cases and his condition was a true baptism like the baptism of water and he was a concrete exception to the dogma EENS.
___________________________
and so I am the last man who could convince you that you are wrong but,
Lionel:
Why should I be wrong affirming EENS and implicit for us baptism of desire and blood,implicit for us being saved in invincible ignorance and seeds of the Word and invisble and hypothetical for us imperfect communion with the Church...just as they did before Cardinal Gibbons was born.
_____________________________
from time to time, such an impossible task is fun to undertake not only for my own amusement but for the edification of lurkers
Lionel:
Having to repeat traditional teachings without the fantasy theology which is common is a work I continue patiently.One day, in my life time, or after I am dead, the seeds will have borne fruit.
-Lionel Andrades