This is not theology

Brother Andre Marie MICM:

"There is no operative theological principle," you say.

Lionel:

How can I say that the dead are visible to us on earth and then build a theological or philosophical principle ?

How can I say that we humans know of cases of persons saved with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance and so every one does not need to enter the Church or everyone needs to enter the Church ?. This would be wrong at the onset.

So all I am saying  is : the dead who are now in Heaven are not physically visible to us on earth.This is my proposition, my premise.Cases of the baptism of desire ( with or without the baptism of water) are not visible to us humans on earth.

If your premise  is the opposite (the dead are visible) and then you create a theological principle ,it  would be irrational.

______________________________________

 Moreover, "Neither is there a standard philosophical principle I am drawing upon." Rather, you are drawing upon empirical observation without the benefit of sound philosophical or theological principles.

Lionel:

I cannot see the dead.Humans in general cannot see the dead. Even a non Catholic or a young boy would say that they could not see the dead who are now  in Heaven. What has this to do with theology or philosophy?

______________________________________

You have proven my point, namely, that you have introduced an anomalous and inappropriate empiricism into theology. It will convince nobody with a solid theological formation. Moreover, it is bad theology.

Lionel:

Again I repeat it is not theology.

_________________________________________

I could use your methodology to prove that Lutheran Consubstantiation does not contradict the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation, since the presence of both bread and Christ in the Holy Eucharist is unknown to us, being empirically unverifiable.

Lionel:

This is not theology. I cannot see the dead in 2014 who are saved and are now in Heaven. Period.There are no cases of the baptism of desire physically visible to me on earth.

So when I am confronted with theology which says that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma it is irrational theology.It is based on an objective error.

In faith, as the Church teaches  I would accept the baptism of desire (with the baptism of water). As a possibility known to God it is acceptable.But defacto. in real life I cannot see any such case. So it is irrelevant to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

We are not assuming that  Transubstantiation is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Why do you mention it here?

In general, liberals and traditionalists and the Magisterium infer that the baptism of desire is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, this is their theology.

________________________________

 (Then again, Christ's own presence there, without the substance of bread, is also empirically unverifiable. Hence the merit of Faith.) But supernatural mysteries cannot be so easily dealt with by the "scientific method."

Lionel:

In faith I accept the possibility of the baptism of desire followed with the baptism of water resulting in salvation and in faith I accept the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

I do not infer or claim that empirically either of the two are exceptions to the dogma.

____________________________

Of the two propositions you lay down, I would accept the second — though I would have to reword it in a more cogent way.

Lionel:

Thank you.

We agree here. Could you rephrase it and send it to me? Please let me know what is acceptable to you.

____________________________________________

 But my accepting it does not take us very far in theology, since it relies on emp irical observation as its lynchpin.

Lionel:

Are you saying that you also cannot see the dead in Heaven now saved with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance followed with the baptism of water ? And so are you rejecting the common theology which suggests that these cases are empirical, objective exceptions to the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney ?

I know with theology you say that the baptism of desire is followed with the baptism of water and so it is not an exception to the dogma. I am not referring to this.

Are you saying that objectively we cannot see any case of the baptism of desire and so the baptism of desire cannot be an objective exception to traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus.?

_____________________________________

 If you reduced it to a logical syllogism, your major premise would likely be atheological, as is your approach in general.

Lionel

Could you please answer the two questions?

I asked Mr. Louis Tofari,of the SSPX USA to please let me know the SSPX position on these two questions.

TWO QUESTIONS

1) Do we personally know the dead now saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc,can we see them, are they physically visible to us in 2014 ?

2) Since we do not know any of these cases, in real life, they are not visible for us, there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, or Ad Gentes 7 which states 'all' need 'faith and baptism' for salvation ?

 Is the answer YES or NO?

Louis Tofari responded :,


 

The SSPX simply follows the teachings of the Catholic Church, so we do
not have our own opinion on this matter.

In response I  e-mailed him:

Thank you for your response.

1.So you would say that the Church teaches and the SSPX accepts it that we personally know the dead now saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc, we can see them, they are physically visible to us in 2014. So we do know of these cases in real  life , they are visible for us,they are known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and to Ad Gentes 7 which states 'all' need 'faith and baptism'for salvation.

2.You would also say that that the Church does not teach ,and the SSPX accepts this ,that we personallydo not know the dead now saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc, we cannot  see them, they are physically not visible to us in 2014. So we do not know of these cases in real life , they are not visible for us,there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and to Ad Gentes 7 which states 'all' need 'faith and baptism'for salvation.
 

There is no answer from him yet . How would you answer the two questions?

-Lionel Andrades

http://catholicism.org/ad-rem-no-239.html

There are no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are not defacto exceptions-Fr.Marco Hausmann FSSP

I spoke to Fr.Marco Hausmann FSSP  today morning after he offered the Tridentine Latin Mass at the church San Giuseppe a Capo le  Case, Rome and I was surprised earlier to see during Holy Mass that the church was full. 

He said there are no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. He agreed that defacto we do not know of any case of someone being saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire.

It is possible, he said, that a person in a jungle somewhere could have the correct disposition, faith in Jesus etc, however there are no defacto, objective cases for us. These persons if they existed would only be known to God.A possibility yes. Objectively, defacto in the present times known to us ?No.

This is a common  place question I keep asking priests. It is so simple that I am concerned at times that they may think I am testing their intelligence.Of course even  a young person would tell you that we cannot see the dead who are now in Heaven saved as such. The priests could be thinking ,"Why does he have to ask me these inane questions ?". Yet I am compelled to since Catholics say hypothetical cases are de facto exceptions.

At first they usually respond with theology and I have to say "Si, si sono in accordo"(I agree) and wait to rephrase my question.Once they undestand what I am saying there is a big smile on their face and they agree with me.Obviously! Who among us can see the dead? So how can there be defacto, objective exceptions to the dogmatic teaching.In general every one needs the baptism of water in 2014 in Rome for salvation. Those who have died without 'faith and baptism'(Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II) are not on the way to Heaven.

Fr.Hausman agreed that there were no exceptions and humanly we cannot see any person on earth for them to be exceptions to all needing the baptism of water.

So far so good. In fact it was too good. So I didn't press my luck and ask him if the Holy Office 1949 and the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Cushing made an error, when they assumed that the baptism of desire   referred to known persons. They  assumed  there were known exceptions to the traditional  interpretation of the dogma.This is what they inferred when they said that Fr.Leonard Feeney was wrong. I did not ask Fr.Marco if the Holy Office made a mistake.That would be too much.

Even Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in  magisterial documents have made an error. They assumed that there are known exceptions to the dogma  extra ecclesiam nulla salus. I did not bring up this point with Fr.Marco.

Earlier at Mass in Italian at this same church, another priest spoke of Jesus as the Saviour.A Saviour saves from what? He did not say Hell but left it up to us to understand. Possibly among the few lay people there, I was the only one who understood.However in accord with the error of the Magisterium at Boston and then subsequently by the popes up to Pope Francis, he could only proclaim Jesus without the necessity of formal membership in the Church.

So he said that salvation is open for all.Of course Jesus died for all and salvation is available for all in potential. But that priest was not going to say to receive this salvation all need to formally enter the Church,with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.(Dominus Iesus 20, Redemtoris Missio etc).

Similarly the FSSP priests,otherwise in Rome,  would proclaim the same limited kerygma and Good News as is expected of him by the Rome Vicariato and the Vatican. They are not  allowed to say that the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation.Since  it would affirm the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney and the pre-1949 times.It would also not be good for good relations with the Jewish Left.

So the Magisterium today proclaims that Pope Pius XII  was correct and Fr.Leonard  Feeney  wrong. In other words there are defacto exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church in 2014.Invincible ignorance is an exception. The baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma.This is not rational. It is not common sense and it would contradict what Don Marco told me today.But this the sad situation under which we have to attend Holy Mass today.-Lionel Andrades

Asia Bibi: 2000 giorni di carcere perchè cattolica

Asia Bibi: 2000 giorni di carcere

Il  12 Dicembre 2014 Asia Bibi avrà fatto 2000 giorni di carcere.

Asia Bibi è una donna  pachistana cattolica madre di 5 figli che, accusata di blasfemia, è stata condannata all’impiccagione nel 2010 di fatto per essersi rifiutata di convertirsi all’Islam. La situazione è drammatica, oltre ad avere pochissime occasioni per vedere la sua famiglia Asia Bibi è chiusa in una cella senza finestre, è ammalata da tempo  e teme di essere uccisa.  Il suo avvocato poi è stato  più volte oggetto di attentati. I politici che hanno cercato di modificare la legge sulla blasfemia  sono stati  assassinati  come il governatore del Punjab, Salman Taseer e  l’unico ministro cristiano del governo di Islamabad, Shahbaz Bhatti.

Per questo è importante esercitare una pressione internazionale sul Pakistan chiedendo la liberazione di Asia Bibi e libertà per i fedeli di tutte le religioni.

Salvarla significa dare una speranza anche ai 150 milioni di cristiani perseguitati nel mondo facendo loro percepire che non sono soli. Nello scorso anno sono stati oltre 100.000 i cristiani uccisi in odio alla loro fede! (Center for the Study of Global Christianity).

Tutti possiamo inviare una mail al Presidente del Pakistan Mamnoon Hussain  a questo indirizzo secretary@president.gov.pk  anche scrivendo semplicemente” Freedom for Asia Bibi”.

Ma sarebbe ancor più importante che le istituzioni, Comuni, Regioni, associazioni ecc. ne richiedessero la liberazione come ha fatto recentemente il sindaco di Parigi  Anne Hidalgo offrendo anche asilo a lei e alla sua famiglia.  Spero che i rappresentanti delle Istituzioni italiane non siano da meno di quelli francesi. Grazie.

Si veda anche Avvenire .it

http://blog.messainlatino.it/