The Exception that is NOT an Exception

Lionel,

Hypothetical question:

A baptized Orthodox child has reached the age of reason, ardently professes the ancient [Catholic] faith, receives the Sacraments though valid successors to the Apostles and has a true devotion to our Blessed Mother; though he is not aware of the requirement of visible communion and subjection to the Roman Pontiff (he had never even heard of this dogma).

Should he die suddenly (and is saved) as a visible member of an Orthodox particular Church, according to the exclusivist dogma of Fr. Feeney, you would say this is irrelevant since it cannot be “known”, but, you say, what we do know with certainty is that he died outside of visible external unity with the Catholic Church, therefore there is NO salvation for this child – period.

But, that is not what you say at all, for you recognize that he can be saved outside of visible communion with the Church, and whether you believe it ever actually happens or not is irrelevant to the doctrine itself.

The doctrine is true, or it isn't, and if true, then those too can be saved outside of visible communion who are joined to the Church in the bonds of faith and charity.

IF, by the grace of God, the child is saved, and had never knowingly broke unity with
the one true Church of Christ of his Baptism, we have no way of knowing this, so objectively, you would say, there is NO salvation for this child; and if he is saved in the bosom and unity of the Church, this is irrelevant to the true dogma that says this child cannot be saved outside of visible incorporation – period, no exceptions.

I do not understand how you cannot see the hypocrisy of your position. If the child is saved outside of visible incorporation with the Church, than reason tells us this is an exception to the dogma that allegedly defined that there is absolutely no salvation outside of visible communion with the Church.

Is there salvation outside of visible communion with the Church? Yes or no. Can you answer the question directly?

If you say no, there are no exceptions that would allow for the possibility of salvation outside of visible membership - period.

You would appear to want to have it both ways; support the exclusivist dogma of Fr. Feeney on NO SALVATION outside of visible Church membership, while allowing for salvation outside of visible Church membership that is not really an exception -- because it cannot be "known" with certainty, even though it is known that the roll call of the Roman Martyrology includes certain martyrs who are believed to have been baptized in blood, but not in water.

So the Church does not accept their extra-sacramental salvation as a possibility, she accepts as it an objective fact, even if, unbeknownst to tradition, one or more of the non-water baptized martyrs did in fact receive the sacrament - it is irrelevant to the Church's belief that the baptism of blood was operative in these cases, and that it is a more perfect (and visible) form of the one Baptism.

I cannot make sense of your position, I see it as a blatant contradiction to “no salvation outside of visible Church membership - period”.

Mike,

One more very good post which clearly shows that The Church must teach and never
can our Faith be left to the interpretation of any one private individual. Imagine the grace from Heaven above that would be necessary for any one person to take on the task of correctly connecting in continuity all of the doctrines through the centuries. Personal thought and development is the stuff thousands of other religions have found their origins. They come and go and only the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church preservers.

Lionel, shake the spiritual cobwebs and revisit the thought process through prayer. You mean well but continue to repeat the same error over and over again.


JMJ,

George

Mike
Hypothetical question:

Lionel:
Mike if it is hypothetical then it does not contradict the dogma which says all need to convert into the Church for salvation.Every body needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church for salvation and what is hypothetical cannot be an exception.

George this is a pending question from a another thread on this forum (Re: Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II is in accord with the sedevacantist position ) It is important to understand the in principle concept.

.

George:
There are absolutely no circumstances that I would tell, teach or imply to anyone that they could be saved by Baptism of Desire when it is my responsibility to teach what Jesus has instructed us to do.

Lionel:
There is confusion here,George.
According to Fr.Leonard Feeney's communities, in principle , a Catechumen with charity,desire, the required grace and the baptism of water can be saved. So a Catechumen could have a genuine desire, perfect charity and God could give him the grace of the baptism of water and he could be saved. So hypothetically there could be a Catechumen saved with the baptism of water and the other conditions.

Regarding baptism of desire:
No Pope, Council, or theologian says that baptism of desire is a sacrament.
Likewise no Pope, Council, or theologian says that baptism of desire incorporates one into the Catholic Church.
Question: Without contradicting the thrice defined Dogma, “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church”, and the infallible teaching of the Council of Trent, how can one define the expression baptism of desire?

Answer: The following definition of baptism of desire can be made which will be totally consistent with the infallible teaching of the Council of Trent and with the thrice defined dogma of “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church”. This definition of baptism of desire goes as follows:

In its proper meaning, this consists of an act of perfect contrition or perfect love [that is Charity, which necessarily implies that one has the True Faith], and the simultaneous desire for baptism. It does not imprint an indelible character on the soul and the obligation to receive Baptism by water remains. (From page 126 of The Catholic Concise Encyclopedia , by Robert Broderick, M.A., copyright 1957, Imprimatur by Francis Cardinal Spellman, Archbishop of New York, August 31, 1956) (Emphasis mine)- Desire, Justification, and Salvation at the Council of Trent, by Br. David Mary, M.I.C.M., Tert. May 02nd, 2005

Michael
A baptized Orthodox child has reached the age of reason, ardently professes the ancient [Catholic] faith, receives the Sacraments though valid successors to the Apostles and has a true devotion to our Blessed Mother; though he is not aware of the requirement of visible communion and subjection to the Roman Pontiff (he had never even heard of this dogma).

Should he die suddenly (and is saved) as a visible member of an Orthodox particular Church, according to the exclusivist dogma of Fr. Feeney, you would say this is irrelevant since it cannot be “known”,

Lionel:
I would say that this case would be known to God only. If he is saved outside the visible ( to us) boundaries of the Church it would be known only to God. So it does not contradict Fr.Leonard Feeney.

I make the distinction between in principle and in fact, implicit and explicit.

Michael
but, you say, what we do know with certainty is that he died outside of visible external unity with the Catholic Church, therefore there is NO salvation for this child – period.

Lionel:
You and I do not know who this child is -period.
So when you do not know in fact, in reality, defacto, explicitly who this child is you want to discuss it. You also want to judge its fate ?

Michael
But, that is not what you say at all, for you recognize that he can be saved outside of visible communion with the Church, and whether you believe it ever actually happens or not is irrelevant to the doctrine itself.

Lionel
I recognize in principle, that he can be saved outside of the visble to us boundaries of the Church.
Whether I believe it actually happens ? How would I know if it actually happened in 2013 or ever ?How would you know ?
So we cannot only accept this in faith.

Michael:
The doctrine is true, or it isn't, and if true, then those too can be saved outside of visible communion who are joined to the Church in the bonds of faith and charity.

Lionel:
The doctrine refers to something in principle and implicit for us. It can only be explicit for God.

Michael:
IF, by the grace of God, the child is saved, and had never knowingly broke unity with
the one true Church of Christ of his Baptism, we have no way of knowing this, so objectively, you would say, there is NO salvation for this child;

Lionel:
In principle I accept this as a possibility. I would not say there is no salvation for this child as a possibility.
In fact, personally in 2013 we have no way of knowing. It can only be known to God.

Michael:
and if he is saved in the bosom and unity of the Church, this is irrelevant to the true dogma that says this child cannot be saved outside of visible incorporation – period, no exceptions.

Lionel:
I accept in principle, he can be saved in the bosom and unity of the Church. This cannot be an exception since this is case is not visible to us in 2013. If it was visible then it would be an exception. In principle cases are true doctrinally, howere they are not explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Michael:
I do not understand how you cannot see the hypocrisy of your position.

Lionel:
If you do not recognize the in principle and in fact distinction you will continue to have difficulty. Also the confusing discussions will continue.

Michael:
If the child is saved outside of visible incorporation with the Church, than reason tells us this is an exception to the dogma

Lionel:
Reason tells us that we can look at this example in principle or in fact, in theory or in real life, practically.
What cannot be seen reason tells us cannot be an exception.

Michael:
that allegedly defined that there is absolutely no salvation outside of visible communion with the Church.

Lionel:
The dogma says there is no salvation outside the Church it was the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing who assumed that there is known salvation outside the church. He did not make the in principle and in fact distinction.
Otherwise it would be clear that what is accepted in principle is not an exception to what is visible in fact, in reality.

Michael:
Is there salvation outside of visible communion with the Church? Yes or no. Can you answer the question directly?
Lionel:
Yes in principle the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257 says God is not limited to the Sacraments.It is a possibility, God being God and if it did occur it would not be an explicit exception to the dogma which says all need to enter the Church.

The ordinary means of salvation is Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.There are only Catholics in Heaven.

If someone is saved without the baptism of water it would be known only to God. We do not know of any such case in the last 100 years or more.Note I am referring to a possibility and not to an actual case. There is no such case known to us.