Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II is in accord with the sedevacantist position

The Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II is in accord with the sedevacantist position on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.


The Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II is in accord with the sedevacantist position on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

The sedevantists Congregatio Mariae Reginae Immaculatae(CMRI) and the Most Holy Family Monastery (sedevacantist websites) hold the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Whether they accept the baptism of desire or reject it, it is irrelevant. Since these cases are not known and so are not exceptions to outside the church there is no salvation.

It's time for the CMRI and sedevacantist websites to come back into the Church since the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II is in agreement with their traditional interpretation of the dogma on salvation.

On the websites of the CMRI and the sedevacantist websites it can be seen that they assume that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are explicit and known to us and so contradict the dogma. The CMRI accepts the baptism of desire along with the traditional interpretation of the dogma and the sedevacantist websites rejects the baptism of desire and also accepts the traditional interpretation of the dogma. Both have fallen for the Cardinal Richard Cushing Error.

It was the cardinal of Boston who assumed that cases of the baptism of desire and those saved in invincible ignorance are explicit to us and so are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Since the 1940's this error is being made by most Catholics.

(This post is related to the one above)
THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AFFIRMS THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
We can interpret passages in agreement with the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or as a break with the dogma.

We can interpret passages rationally, knowing that we cannot see the dead on earth. Or irrationally, we can assume the dead are visible.

The false premise of the dead being saved and visible to us would be a rupture with Tradition.Without this premise the Catechism,like Vatican Council II is in accord with Tradition.

Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) 1281:Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, can be saved even if they have not been baptized (cf. LG 16).

IRRATIONAL INTERPRETATION:
These catechumen are known to us in 2012 and so they are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which says all need to convert into the Church for salvation(to avoid Hell).

RATIONAL:
We do not know any of these catechumens in 2012 so they are not an exception to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.

CCC 1257 :
The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

IRRATIONAL:
God is not bound by his sacraments and so every one on earth does not need the baptism of water for salvation.

RATIONAL:
God is not bound by his sacraments and we accept this in principle, as a possibility,only. We do not known any such case in 2012 and so it does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. CCC 1257 and CCC 1281 are in accord with the thrice defined dogma on salvation.

It is irrational to assume that the dead who are saved are visible.

CCC 1258:
The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

IRRATIONAL:
The baptism of desire and blood are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

RATIONAL:
Baptism of desire and blood refer to cases known only to God. So they cannot be exceptions to the dogmatic teaching on salvation.

CCC 1259 :
For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

IRRATIONAL:
The catechumens can be saved without the baptism of desire and these cases are known to us.So they are exceptions to the dogma.

RATIONAL:
Yes in principle as a possibility they can be saved without the baptism of water if God chooses it as such. However this is a hypothetical case. In 2012 all need the baptism of water for salvation since we cannot meet any exceptions to the dogmatic teaching.

CCC 1260:
"Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

IRRATIONAL:
A man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and his Church can be saved. So this is an exception to Tradition and especially the dogma on salvation.

RATIONAL:
A person can be saved in invincible ignorance and these cases are irrelevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. We cannot know who is saved with implicit salvation. It is not explicit for us.

CCC 1261:
As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

RATIONAL:
We can entrust them to the mercy of God.

CCC 846 :
How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

IRRATIONAL:
All who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church and so these cases are an exception to the dogma.

RATIONAL:
Yes there can be people saved through Jesus and the Church and since we do not know them this does not contradict the dogma. We cannot meet someone on the street who we know is saved by Jesus and the Church.

CCC 847 :
This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

IRRATIONAL:
Those who are through no fault of their own are exceptions to the dogma.

RATIONAL:
They are unknown to us in 2012 so they are irrelevant to the dogma on exclusive salvation.

CCC 848:
"Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."

IRRATIONAL:
They can be saved who are in ignorance through no fault of their own.

RATIONAL:
Invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are not exceptions to the dogma. It was Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston, in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case who assumed that those saved in ignorance were exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma. If Fr.Leonard Feeney accepted or rejected these cases it was irrelevant to his literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

The liberal, non traditional interpretation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church comes from assuming that the dead who are saved are visible to us and so are an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This interpretation has no basis in the Catechism .The Catechism does not state that these cases are visible or are an exception to the dogma. This is implied by many Catholics.They cannot provide any reference from the Catechism for their error.

CCC 846 states, 'He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. '

CCC 845 states that the Church 'alone saves from the flood' and is 'prefigured by Noah's Ark'. God the Father wants every one to enter the Catholic Church, extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son's Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is "the world reconciled." She is that bark which "in the full sail of the Lord's cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world." According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah's ark, which alone saves from the flood.

The Catechism is in accord with the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.-Lionel Andrades

Lionel,

Your own “false premise” suffers from a couple of erroneous suppositions, though you do not seem to want to acknowledge them, let alone address them head-on.

For example, you keep repeating such inanities as this:

We can interpret passages rationally, knowing that we cannot see the dead on earth. Or irrationally, we can assume the dead are visible.

The false premise of the dead being saved and visible to us would be a rupture with Tradition. Without this premise the Catechism, like Vatican Council II is in accord with Tradition.

You have not been able to demonstrate where the SSPX, the FSSP or the Catholic Church have ever suggested that “we can assume the dead are saved and visible”.

The notion is irrational and in fact, flat out silly. Have you presented your thesis to anyone at the FSSP or the SSPX? If so, have you received a response? If not, perhaps you should consider that they may not be taking you seriously. I'm being kind.

One of your errors posits that the objective component of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus that requires visible external membership in the Catholic Church “which men enter through Baptism as through a door” is THE definition of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, and that internal unity with the Church by faith, charity and desire are “exceptions” to the dogma. But, as I keep telling you, internal unity with the Church is not an “exception”, it is an integral part of the same dogma for without them there is no salvation whether one is visibly united to the Church, or not.

If I were to ask you if a profession of the true faith is part of the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, you would have to say yes, since no one can be a member of the Church without such a profession. But if I were to ask you if the profession of faith by a baptized Catholic is proof of visible salvation, you would have to say no. You may say that it is evidence of a state of grace, but you cannot know he is saved – for his faith may very well be dead, and his external membership cannot save him.

So why do you accuse the Church, the SSPX and the FSSP of holding to a “dead men walking” doctrine that sees the visible salvation of souls who may or not be ordained towards the Church while remaining inculpably ignorant of the Church and its necessity for salvation, when they do no such thing?

You keep repeating this, and you cannot show me proof. You say that it is “implied”, but is clear that it is implied only by you.

While the Church has always proclaimed the objective requirements of salvation, she can also tell us of the internal dispositions that will assure unity with the Mystical Body and the graces that extend from the Church, even if she cannot know with certainty, apart from her solemn proclamations, of any such instances; just as she cannot know of any such instances with baptized adults. That’s why she has focused in centuries past on the objective criteria, but that does not make the subjective criteria any less true.

She has the authority, for example, to teach that the present-day Orthodox are not to be held culpable for the objective state of schism, and that good will, in general, should be presumed. None of this says that the Church sees the Orthodox as being “saved in invincible ignorance”, but only that the one path to organic unity and salvation, and the graces that flow from the Church to that end remain open to them. But, if they are saved, they are not saved outside the Church, though this does NOT absolutely necessitate external membership, and this is NOT an “exception” to the dogma on that which is intrinsically necessary for salvation and unity, but only to the divine precept.

I’ve said this several times now, and you mistakenly call this “theology”, and irrelevant to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma, which you say is the same interpretation as that of the Church. Sure it is.

Lionel wrote:
For them [the FSSP and SSPX] the baptism of desire is explicit and so is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and to Fr.Leonard Feeney.

The baptism of desire is NOT “explicit” in the case of a catechumen, for example, except in the same sense that a baptized Catholic’s external manifestation of his fervent faith is “explicit”, but in neither case is salvation “visible” (the assurance of salvation), though both will be given Christian burial and both will have the good hope of salvation.

Tell us, Lionel, when this discipline of Christian burial changed in 1917, did this reflect a new Protestant theology of salvation in the funeral rites (wake, Mass, burial) that were afforded the catechumen? Shouldn’t you change 1940 to 1917 for the year that “the false premise came about when” it was “assumed that the baptism of desire” was an exception “to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiamn nulla salus”?

In fact, a non-regenerated non-Catholic who is moved by grace to profess the true faith as he witnesses the martyrdom of Catholics, and is himself martyred for professing the true Faith and love of our Lord, is an “explicit” manifestation of baptism of blood, much more so than any “visible” profession of faith of a baptized Catholic who is not asked to die for his faith. This is why saints such as the 40th martyr of Sebaste is honored by the Church when tradition has it he was a non-baptized soldier who was so moved (by grace) at the faith of the other 39 baptized Christians who were being martyred by exposure to the (freezing) elements, that he publicly professed his faith and took the place of someone who got “cold feet”.

So, yes, the salvation of this soldier/martyr was an “exception” to the divine precept requiring external membership in the Church, but it was not an exception to that component of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus requiring supernatural faith and charity (desire). The very same virtues/dispositions (no exceptions) that internally unite one to Christ were clearly and explicitly manifested, though this is not typically the case, at least not in such a dramatic manifestation.

Can. 737, § 1 of the 1917 Code reflects the dogma perfectly: “Baptism, the gateway and foundation of the Sacraments, necessary for all for salvation in re or at least in desire, is not validly conferred except by washing with true and natural water along with the prescribed formula of words." (1917 Codex Iuris Canonici)

There are no exceptions to baptismal regeneration, there is only one Baptism, and neither baptism of blood nor baptism of desire are “exceptions”; they are both called “baptisms”, as St. Thomas says, “in so far as they produce the effect of the Baptism of Water”, and thus, “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.”

You are simply mistaken, Lionel, for the dogma has never been so rigorist as to exclude from salvation those who may be internally joined to the Church by the visible manifestations and invisible bonds of faith and charity. While internal unity evidenced by external faith and desire is subjective, so too is anyone’s state of soul, since the internal bonds of unity cannot be known except by external manifestations where the good hope of salvation may be presumed, but never assured, and the divine precept that necessitates external unity for all men is never rescinded; though, as an extrinsic necessity or means, the unity it affects and our Lord desires, may be fulfilled and effected by the internal bonds of faith and charity.

The word “exception”, then, applies only to the objective necessity of visible external membership, but this is not the only means by which one may be united to Christ and His Church, of which He is the Head.

I wish you'd stick to one or two threads since you have not deviated from the same errant premise with your multiple threads. I take it you are re-posting your numerous entries from your own blog. Great.

If you are going to post here, please learn to use the "quote" and other functions that divides your responses from that of others. It is quite annoying trying to follow your responses, and having to re-format your posts.

MRyan wrote:You are simply mistaken, Lionel, for the dogma has never been so rigorist as to exclude from salvation those who may be internally joined to the Church by the visible manifestations and invisible bonds of faith and charity. While internal unity evidenced by external faith and desire is subjective, so too is anyone’s state of soul, since the internal bonds of unity cannot be known except by external manifestations where the good hope of salvation may be presumed, but never assured, and the divine precept that necessitates external unity for all men is never rescinded; though, as an extrinsic necessity or means, the unity it affects and our Lord desires, may be fulfilled and effected by the internal bonds of faith and charity.

Mike,

The above is just sloppy language; perhaps you did not intent that. The 1949 Holy Office Letter gives the conditions for in voto membership in the Church:

But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: "For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him" (Heb. 11:6). The Council of Trent declares ( Session VI, chap. 8 ): "Faith is the beginning of man's salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children" ( Denzinger, n. 801 ).

Hence, the huge difference between a catechumen who dies without sacramental Baptism and one who, after receiving that Sacrament, dies:

1453 The contrition called "imperfect" (or "attrition") is also a gift of God, a prompting of the Holy Spirit. It is born of the consideration of sin's ugliness or the fear of eternal damnation and the other penalties threatening the sinner (contrition of fear). Such a stirring of conscience can initiate an interior process which, under the prompting of grace, will be brought to completion by sacramental absolution. By itself however, imperfect contrition cannot obtain the forgiveness of grave sins, but it disposes one to obtain forgiveness in the sacrament of Penance.

So, a catechumen who dies with only imperfect contrition and in grave sin goes to Hell, regardless if he/she received a Mass of Christian Burial or not. In addition, the "invisible bonds of faith and charity" are not enough to unite one "invisibly" to the Catholic Church; one must also keep the natural law:

2036 The authority of the Magisterium extends also to the specific precepts of the natural law, because their observance, demanded by the Creator, is necessary for salvation. In recalling the prescriptions of the natural law, the Magisterium of the Church exercises an essential part of its prophetic office of proclaiming to men what they truly are and reminding them of what they should be before God.

Also, one cannot be ignorant of the natural law:

1958 The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history; it subsists under the flux of ideas and customs and supports their progress. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. Even when it is rejected in its very principles, it cannot be destroyed or removed from the heart of man. It always rises again in the life of individuals and societies:

Theft is surely punished by your law, O Lord, and by the law that is written in the human heart, the law that iniquity itself does not efface.

For instance, artificial contraception is intrinsically evil:

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.

Virtually all Protestants, of course, use birth control, as do most Orthodox, Jews, etc., as do most Catholics.

MRyan
Your own “false premise” suffers from a couple of erroneous suppositions, though you do not seem to want to acknowledge them, let alone address them head-on.

For example, you keep repeating such inanities as this:

We can interpret passages rationally, knowing that we cannot see the dead on earth. Or irrationally, we can assume the dead are visible.

The false premise of the dead being saved and visible to us would be a rupture with Tradition. Without this premise the Catechism, like Vatican Council II is in accord with Tradition.
You have not been able to demonstrate where the SSPX, the FSSP or the Catholic Church have ever suggested that “we can assume the dead are saved and visible”.


Lionel:
Where is the proof that the SSPX has suggested that " we can assume the dead are saved and visible"?I have posted the examples, the proof, on two threads on this forum.

Here is one of them.

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre says:
"Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.” (The Angelus, “A Talk Heard Round the World,” April, 2006, p. 5.)

The above quotation is often used on Traditionalist forums to criticize the supporters of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
They assume that these cases are explicit ; visible to us and then they imply that these cases are exceptions to the dogma on salvation.

2

SSPX founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, "Against the Heresies",p.216
“Evidently,certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism,etc.), but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions,who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire.

It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”

Again supporters of the SSPX use this quotation above to imply that there are known exceptions to the dogma and Fr. Leonard Feeney's interpretation)
_________________________________________

Here is more proof.
It is a discussion on Rorate Caeili between a supporter of the SSPX and Bro.Andre Marie, Prior of the St.Benedict Center,the community of Fr.Leonard Feeney.

Ecclesia Militans
As for St. Emerentiana, I see that Fr. Feeney decided to deny Tradition by saying she must have been baptised in water before martyrdom, although she has always been counted as an unbaptized cathecumen who died for Christ and received the Baptism of Blood.

On the other hand, I present you a short list of those important documents, theologians, bishops and doctors that explicitly affirmed the threefold Baptism (most of the quotes are found in the article mentioned in my last comment, if you wish, I can send you the others by mail):

Ecclesia Militans
St. Cyprian BM, Tertullian, St. Cyril of Jerusalem BCD, St. John Chrysostome BCD, St. Ambrose BCD, St. Augustine BCD, St. Thomas Aquinas CD, St. Catherine of Sienna V, Ecumenical Council of Trent, Catechism of the Council of Trent, St. Alphonsus Liguori BCD, Pope Pius IX, Baltimore Cathechism (19th century), The Cathechism Explained (1899), Cathechism of Pope St. Pius X, Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), Code of Canon Law (1917), Catholic Dictionary (1946), Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office (1949).

Lionel:
He is referring to the baptism of desire affirmed by these persons mentioned here. He assumes that these persons contradict Fr.Leonard Feeney. They contradict Fr.Leonard Feeney since for him the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The baptism of desire can only be an exception to the dogma if it was visible. If we could see the dead saved walking on earth, then it would be an exception or relevant.

For him it is irrelevant and so he tells Bro. Anndre Marie that this is a contradiction to the traditional understanding of Fr.Leonard Feeney.

This line of thinking is common among the SSPX and the FSSP. It is not only an error but a theme in the book written by Fr.Francois Laisney and sold by the SSPX.

He then goes on to say that this is a view held by the leaders of the SSPX.

Ecclesia Militans
Joseph Fenton (1952), Archbishop Lefebvre FSSPX, Fr. Schmidberger FSSPX, Bishop Fellay FSSPX...

Mryan
One of your errors posits that the objective component of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus that requires visible external membership in the Catholic Church “which men enter through Baptism as through a door” is THE definition of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, and that internal unity with the Church by faith, charity and desire are “exceptions” to the dogma.

Lionel: Again you are going in circles with theology. I can understand that all these years only theologically this issue was discussed and defended.

MRyan
But, as I keep telling you, internal unity with the Church is not an “exception”, it is an integral part of the same dogma for without them there is no salvation whether one is visibly united to the Church, or not.

Lionel
O.K that is your theology.
It is irrelevant to my saying that we cannot see the dead. We cannot see those with 'internal unity with the Church' and who are saved.So they cannot be exceptions to the teaching of the dogma that all need convert. All need to convert with faith and baptism (AG 7).

MRyan
If I were to ask you if a profession of the true faith is part of the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, you would have to say yes,

Lionel:
There can be a profession of the faith which is true and false.One can profess the faith believeing there are three known forms of baptism.(I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin- Nicene Creed). Or in the profession of the faith one can believe there is only one known baptism for the forgiveness of sin.The baptism of water.

So when one assumes there are three known baptisms for the forgiveness of sins it contradicts the dogma and the Creed.



since no one can be a member of the Church without such a profession. But if I were to ask you if the profession of faith by a baptized Catholic is proof of visible salvation, you would have to say no. You may say that it is evidence of a state of grace, but you cannot know he is saved – for his faith may very well be dead, and his external membership cannot save him.

So why do you accuse the Church, the SSPX and the FSSP of holding to a “dead men walking” doctrine that sees the visible salvation of souls who may or not be ordained towards the Church while remaining inculpably ignorant of the Church and its necessity for salvation, when they do no such thing?

You keep repeating this, and you cannot show me proof. You say that it is “implied”, but is clear that it is implied only by you.

While the Church has always proclaimed the objective requirements of salvation, she can also tell us of the internal dispositions that will assure unity with the Mystical Body and the graces that extend from the Church, even if she cannot know with certainty, apart from her solemn proclamations, of any such instances; just as she cannot know of any such instances with baptized adults. That’s why she has focused in centuries past on the objective criteria, but that does not make the subjective criteria any less true.

She has the authority, for example, to teach that the present-day Orthodox are not to be held culpable for the objective state of schism, and that good will, in general, should be presumed. None of this says that the Church sees the Orthodox as being “saved in invincible ignorance”, but only that the one path to organic unity and salvation, and the graces that flow from the Church to that end remain open to them. But, if they are saved, they are not saved outside the Church, though this does NOT absolutely necessitate external membership, and this is NOT an “exception” to the dogma on that which is intrinsically necessary for salvation and unity, but only to the divine precept.

I’ve said this several times now, and you mistakenly call this “theology”, and irrelevant to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma, which you say is the same interpretation as that of the Church. Sure it is.

MRyan

But, as I keep telling you, internal unity with the Church is not an “exception”, it is an integral part of the same dogma for without them there is no salvation whether one is visibly united to the Church, or not.

Lionel
In principle, hypotehtically we can accept that there could be someone saved in 'internal unity with the Church'.
This case is not visible to us in real life.

1.So one can assume that a person who is not visible to us can be saved.
2.We can also assume that these cases visible to us can be saved and so are exceptions to the dogma.

Whether this person is visible to us is the premise and then follows either of the two theologies.

internal unity with the Church

MRyan:
The baptism of desire is NOT “explicit” in the case of a catechumen, for example, except in the same sense that a baptized Catholic’s external manifestation of his fervent faith is “explicit”, but in neither case is salvation “visible” (the assurance of salvation), though both will be given Christian burial and both will have the good hope of salvation.

Lionel:
Those with the baptism of desire are not explicit so one cannot claim that someone has the baptism of desire or does not. It is not relevant to the burial of a Catholic.

MRyan:
Tell us, Lionel, when this discipline of Christian burial changed in 1917, did this reflect a new Protestant theology of salvation in the funeral rites (wake, Mass, burial) that were afforded the catechumen? Shouldn’t you change 1940 to 1917 for the year that “the false premise came about when” it was “assumed that the baptism of desire” was an exception “to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiamn nulla salus”?

Lionel:
As mentioned above, the baptism of desire has nothing to do with the burial of a Catholic. Since we do not know any such case.
If there is a Catechumen who expresses an explicit desire for the baptism of water, and then dies without receiving it,. then in this particular case it could be decided by the priest concerned. Since such a person can be saved.

MRyan
In fact, a non-regenerated non-Catholic who is moved by grace to profess the true faith as he witnesses the martyrdom of Catholics, and is himself martyred for professing the true Faith and love of our Lord, is an “explicit” manifestation of baptism of blood, much more so than any “visible” profession of faith of a baptized Catholic who is not asked to die for his faith.

Lionel:
So he can be saved.

MRyan:
This is why saints such as the 40th martyr of Sebaste is honored by the Church when tradition has it he was a non-baptized soldier who was so moved (by grace) at the faith of the other 39 baptized Christians who were being martyred by exposure to the (freezing) elements, that he publicly professed his faith and took the place of someone who got “cold feet”.

Lionel:
So he can be a martyr. He can be saved.

MRyan:
So, yes, the salvation of this soldier/martyr was an “exception” to the divine precept requiring external membership in the Church,

Lionel:
Yes it is a possibility. If the Church declares someone a martyr or a saint we accept it.
Other cases are hypotehetical. If there are real cases in 2013 we would not know about them. So in the present times there is no exception to the dogma which indicates every one needs to be a visible member of the Church for salvation.

MRyan
but it was not an exception to that component of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus requiring supernatural faith and charity (desire).

Lionel:
In general we cannot judge these cases.

MRyan
The very same virtues/dispositions (no exceptions) that internally unite one to Christ were clearly and explicitly manifested, though this is not typically the case, at least not in such a dramatic manifestation.

Lionel:
If it was manifest in a person declard a martyr or saint it is acceptable.Otherwise we cannot judge. We cannot claim to know any exception in the present times.

MRyan
Can. 737, § 1 of the 1917 Code reflects the dogma perfectly: “Baptism, the gateway and foundation of the Sacraments, necessary for all for salvation in re or at least in desire, is not validly conferred except by washing with true and natural water along with the prescribed formula of words." (1917 Codex Iuris Canonici)

Lionel
Agreed.

MRyan
There are no exceptions to baptismal regeneration,

Lionel
Correct. There are no exceptions in the present time, to all needing the baptism of water.It is given to adults with Catholic Faith.

MRyan
there is only one Baptism,

Lionel:
There is only one visible baptism. The baptism of water. All need this baptism.There is one baptism which we know in reality, defacto, in practise and which we can also discuss hypothetically and accept in principle.

MRyan
and neither baptism of blood nor baptism of desire are “exceptions”;

Lionel:
Correct. They are not exceptions. They cannot be exceptions since they are not known.

MRyan
they are both called “baptisms”, as St. Thomas says, “in so far as they produce the effect of the Baptism of Water”, and thus, “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.”

Lionel.
Fine theologically. I can agree with you.

MRyan:
You are simply mistaken, Lionel, for the dogma has never been so rigorist as to exclude from salvation those who may be internally joined to the Church by the visible manifestations and invisible bonds of faith and charity.

Lionel:
Agred the dogma has never been so rigorist as to exclude from salvation those who may be internally joined to the Church by the invisible bonds of faith and charity. Why should the Councils which gave us the dogma exclude these cases when they are not visible to us and so cannot be exceptions to what the media calls the rigorist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So these cases, internally joined to the Church by invisible bonds of faith and charity are not exceptions to Fr.Leonard Feeney's interpretation of the dogma.

As for those joined to the Church by the visible manifestations of faith and charity and who are saved are also not a contradiction to the rigorist interpretation of the dogma which says all need to convert into the Church. All need to be members of the Church for salvation.


MRyan
While internal unity evidenced by external faith and desire is subjective, so too is anyone’s state of soul, since the internal bonds of unity cannot be known except by external manifestations where the good hope of salvation may be presumed, but never assured, and the divine precept that necessitates external unity for all men is never rescinded; though, as an extrinsic necessity or means, the unity it affects and our Lord desires, may be fulfilled and effected by the internal bonds of faith and charity.

Lionel:
Agreed those with the necessary internal bonds of faith and charity can be saved and they would be known to God only. So these cases are not exceptions to the teaching that every one needs to be a visible member of the Church for salvation.

MRyan
The word “exception”, then, applies only to the objective necessity of visible external membership, but this is not the only means by which one may be united to Christ and His Church, of which He is the Head.


Lionel
The word exception for me refers to cases with the necessary internal bonds of faith and charity are who are assumed to be visible and known to us.So it is implied that they contradict the dogmatic teaching that all need to convert into the Church for salvation.

If these cases are referred to as just existing, if they are just possibilities, known only to God, then they are not exceptions.


MRyanI wish you'd stick to one or two threads since you have not deviated from the same errant premise with your multiple threads. I take it you are re-posting your numerous entries from your own blog. Great.

Lionel
Yes

If you are going to post here, please learn to use the "quote" and other functions that divides your responses from that of others. It is quite annoying trying to follow your responses, and having to re-format your posts.

LionelI'll use the quote functions.

Lionel wrote:
There can be a profession of the faith which is true and false. One can profess the faith believing there are three known forms of baptism. (I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin- Nicene Creed). Or in the profession of the faith one can believe there is only one known baptism for the forgiveness of sin. The baptism of water.

So when one assumes there are three known baptisms for the forgiveness of sins it contradicts the dogma and the Creed.

And this is where your misguided thesis (lacking moderation by the Church) falls apart. When we profess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins we are professing that our Lord instituted one sacrament of baptism for the forgiveness of sins, but we are not professing that the baptisms of blood and desire are not included in the one Baptism, for they certainly are, “in so far as they produce the effect of the Baptism of Water.”

Let’s state your objection to “three known baptisms” that you say “contradicts the dogma and the Creed”, as it was presented by St. Thomas Aquinas:

Objection 1. It seems that the three kinds of Baptism are not fittingly described as Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit, i.e. of the Holy Ghost. Because the Apostle says (Ephesians 4:5): "One Faith, one Baptism." Now there is but one Faith. Therefore there should not be three Baptisms.

In his Reply to this Objection, St. Thomas responds, to the contrary,

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.

So, unless you are prepared to say that both St. Thomas Aquinas and the Catholic Church, the latter of which teaches she “has always held the firm conviction that … this Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament”, contradict “the dogma and the Creed”, I would suggest that you modify your position, lest you take up the charge of “heresy” against your own Church, and her greatest Doctor.

MRyan said in answer to Lionel:

And this is where your misguided thesis (lacking moderation by the Church) falls apart. When we profess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins we are professing that our Lord instituted one sacrament of baptism for the forgiveness of sins, but we are not professing that the baptisms of blood and desire are not included in the one Baptism, for they certainly are, “in so far as they produce the effect of the Baptism of Water.”

Mike, I think this says it as well , brief and concise as I have ever heard Baptism explained. If only this was the day to day teaching to Catholics and non Catholics for that matter, to insure better understanding and acceptance of church teaching. There are some who do not accept baptism of blood and baptism of desire. There are many who do not understand for lack of proper catechesis. There are many who think that baptism of blood and baptism of desire are less acceptable to God or reluctantly accept baptism of blood and baptism of desire as only as possibility and only on their own terms. There are many that are confused because those who should teach the faith are confused. There are some who think baptism of blood and baptism of desire are heretical teaching. There are some who combine some of the above in their dangerous hybrid personal Catholicism. There are some prone to personal private interpretation. Mike , please word my following thought properly. baptism of blood and baptism of desire occur when it is impossible for the saved soul to receive Baptism of Water and their sanctity is granted in ways known to God and supernaturally incorporated into one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins as known by God who we dare not question or confine with our puny limitations on the methods of God's mercy. This in no way takes away the teaching mission of Church and the necessity of Baptism by Water as necessary for Salvation as mandated by Jesus.


JMJ,

George

George wrote:

Mike, please word my following thought properly. baptism of blood and baptism of desire occur when it is impossible for the saved soul to receive Baptism of Water and their sanctity is granted in ways known to God and supernaturally incorporated into one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins as known by God who we dare not question or confine with our puny limitations on the methods of God's mercy. This in no way takes away the teaching mission of Church and the necessity of Baptism by Water as necessary for Salvation as mandated by Jesus.

Yes, but it is does not occur only then. Let me explain:

Baptism of desire can be defined generally, A.) As an extra-sacramental means of baptismal regeneration (justification), or more specifically, B.) As an extra-sacramental means of baptismal regeneration when an impediment blocks the reception of the sacrament. The latter is its more typical understanding or usage for the simple reason that we are not generally concerned with the fact that a state of sanctifying grace can and does exist (when the proper dispositions are present) before Baptism is conferred when there are no impediments to its reception; which is why we generally define baptism of desire as the extra-sacramental means of obtaining baptismal sanctification should any unforeseen obstacle “make it impossible to be washed in the salutary waters”.

As example of the first general definition is that which we find in Trent, Sess. 6, Ch. 4, which is concerned solely with a definition (description) of justification, and the manner in which it is effected (“the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof”).

An example of its more explicit definition (its concrete application) is found in the Catechism of Trent where in its section on Baptism it teaches (in univocal precision with the Council of Trent), “should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.”

Anyway, I’m fine with your definition, but wanted to add some context.

Thank you very much, Mike. I will print your explanation so that I have a hard copy to use as a reference as questions arise in my discussions. Your explanation completes the thought and understanding process for me on this subject.



JMJ,


George

Michael
When we profess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins we are professing that our Lord instituted one sacrament of baptism for the forgiveness of sins, but we are not professing that the baptisms of blood and desire are not included in the one Baptism, for they certainly are, “in so far as they produce the effect of the Baptism of Water.”

Lionel
Acceptable.
However when the new Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith made the Profession of Faith and said he believed in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin.In good faith you could assume that he was referring to the baptism of water.

However in two of theological papers of the International Theological Commission he has written that the baptism of desire etc are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Since they are exceptions they must be known.

So we have three known baptisms here, water, desire and blood.

For you the baptisms of blood and desire are included in the baptism of water and they are known too. ?

Let’s state your objection to “three known baptisms” that you say “contradicts the dogma and the Creed”, as it was presented by St. Thomas Aquinas:

Objection 1. It seems that the three kinds of Baptism are not fittingly described as Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit, i.e. of the Holy Ghost. Because the Apostle says (Ephesians 4:5): "One Faith, one Baptism." Now there is but one Faith. Therefore there should not be three Baptisms.
In his Reply to this Objection, St. Thomas responds, to the contrary,

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.

Lionel:
Acceptable.
Also St.Thomas Aquinas does not claim or imply that there are three visible baptisms. So there is only one known, visible and repeatable baptism which is that of water.
For numerous religious who make a Profession of Faith, the baptism of desire and blood is assumed to be an exception to the dogma.

Michael
When we profess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins we are professing that our Lord instituted one sacrament of baptism for the forgiveness of sins, but we are not professing that the baptisms of blood and desire are not included in the one Baptism, for they certainly are, “in so far as they produce the effect of the Baptism of Water.”

Lionel:
'When we profess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins we are professing that our Lord instituted one sacrament of baptism for the forgiveness of sins, but we are not professing that the baptisms of blood and desire are not included in the one Baptism, for they certainly are, “in so far as they produce the effect of the Baptism of Water.'Could this also include those saved with a good conscience (LG 16),elements of sanctification (LG , seeds of the word (AG), imperfect communion with the church (UR) etc ?

(I do not know how that smiley has come there over LG

So in 2013 every adult needs Catholic Faith with the baptism of water for salvation, the baptism of water being the only known and repeatable form of baptism ? There are no known exeptions to the baptism of water and Catholic Faith, for salvation?

Michael
When we profess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins we are professing that our Lord instituted one sacrament of baptism for the forgiveness of sins, but we are not professing that the baptisms of blood and desire are not included in the one Baptism, for they certainly are, “in so far as they produce the effect of the Baptism of Water.”

Lionel
This is one theology.There could be others.If you use the primacy of grace it could be expressed differently.Similalry, if you accept Our Lady as Co Redemptrix and Mediatrix of All Grace it is expressed differently. Though the understanding would be the same.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (846) has the same message when it says all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church.

All this does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the traditional ecclesiology (theological understanding of Church). For salvation, every one needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church and there are no known exceptions of invincible ignorance, implicit desire, good conscience, seeds of the word, imperfect communion with the Church, etc.

The new theology is false if one assumes there are known exceptions to the traditional understanding of Church according to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Lionel wrote:

MRyan wrote:
When we profess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins we are professing that our Lord instituted one sacrament of baptism for the forgiveness of sins, but we are not professing that the baptisms of blood and desire are not included in the one Baptism, for they certainly are, “in so far as they produce the effect of the Baptism of Water.”

Acceptable.

After saying it is a contradiction to the dogma, you now find the same doctrine of Aquinas and the Church acceptable.

I’m glad we could clear up that misunderstanding so easily!

Well, not quite:

Lionel wrote:
However when the new Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith made the Profession of Faith and said he believed in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin. In good faith you could assume that he was referring to the baptism of water.

Of course, and understood as it is stated above, there is no “contradiction”.

Lionel wrote:
However in two of theological papers of the International Theological Commission he has written that the baptism of desire etc are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Since they are exceptions they must be known.

Show me where “he has written that the baptism of desire etc are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.” I am willing to wager he said no such thing. In fact, I know he said no such thing. Once again, you are simply imposing your errant belief that the “dogma” says there is no salvation without visible water baptism, period.

And, this also means that far from finding the doctrine of Aquinas and that of the Church “acceptable” in that “the unity of Baptism is not destroyed” with the baptisms of blood and desire, you once again say these are “exceptions” to the dogma, the latter of which says, allegedly, that there is only one “known” and “visible” Baptism by which one can be saved, when it actually says there is only one sacrament of Baptism (that we profess) that makes one a visible member of the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation.

However, visible membership [“incorporated in reality (reapse)"] is not an intrinsic prerequisite for unity with Christ and salvation [one may “belong to it at least in desire and longing (voto et desiderio)"], so it is a simple logical fallacy to hold that because no one can be a visible “known” member of the Church without the sacrament of Baptism, and, because there is no salvation outside the Church, it “infallibly” follows that no one can be saved without actual sacramental ablution.

Again, the Catechumen who is presumed to be properly disposed (in the external forum) is already “known” to the Church as one of her own, even if he will not be “known” to be formally incorporated until the rite(s) of initiation is completed.

What am I saying? I am saying that while the visible sacrament of Baptism works internally ex opere operanto, the one essential effect that can be frustrated by the recipient is his "desire" for the sacrament. Meaning, he may externally manifest his desire, but his is a false desire if he not properly disposed for the reception of grace. As I said, a still-born member of the Church is still a visible member of the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation.

And you said the subject is NOT salvation? That is like saying the subject of the divine/ecclesiastical precept to attend Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation is NOT the Commandment to keep holy the Lord's day. No, it's all about external attendance at Mass, outside of which there is no keeping the Lord's day holy.

In its most extensive treatment of the subject, The Hope of Salvation for Infants who Die Without Being Baptized, the ITC never once says “that the baptism of desire etc are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus”, but says, rather,

66. …Already in the early Christian community, it was accepted that martyrdom, the “Baptism of blood”, was a substitute for sacramental Baptism. Furthermore, there was the acknowledgement of the Baptism of desire. In this regard, the words of Thomas Aquinas are pertinent: “The sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptised, nor wish to be baptised…Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire…Such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptised on account of his desire for Baptism”. The Council of Trent acknowledges “Baptism of desire” as a way whereby one can be justified without the actual reception of the sacrament of Baptism: “After the promulgation of the Gospel, this transition [from sin to justice] cannot take place without the bath of regeneration or the desire for it for as it is written: ‘Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, one cannot enter the kingdom of God (Jn 3:5)’”.

67. The Christian faith affirmation of the necessity of sacramental Baptism for salvation cannot be depleted of its existential significance by being reduced to a merely theoretical affirmation. On the other hand, God’s freedom over the saving means given by him must be equally respected. Consequently, one must avoid any attempt to oppose sacramental Baptism, the Baptism of desire and Baptism of blood as antithetical. …

Again, Lionel, the ITC does NOT state “that the baptism of desire etc are exceptions to the dogma”, it says it is a “substitute for sacramental Baptism”. A substitute for the sacrament that provides the essential effect of the sacrament is not an exception to the dogma, for the dogma is fulfilled by baptismal regeneration in all three cases.

You said the doctrine of Aquinas (and the Church) on the two other “baptisms” is “acceptable”, so your allegation that Bishop Mueller or the ITC teaches that baptism of desire is an “exception” to the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is actually a contradiction to “acceptable”, especially when the ITC never said what you allege.

Lionel wrote:
So we have three known baptisms here, water, desire and blood.

Yes, but only one sacrament of Baptism that we profess for the forgiveness of sins, the latter of which may be effected by any one of the three “Baptisms”, the extra-sacramental forms of which do not destroy the unity of Baptism.

You said this is “acceptable”.

Lionel wrote:
For you the baptisms of blood and desire are included in the baptism of water and they are known too. ?

They are “known” to the extent that we “know” with absolute certainty that they are efficacious for sanctification when the proper dispositions are present, just as we know with absolute certainty that water Baptism is efficacious for sanctification when the proper dispositions are present. But no, we do not know in either case (with absolute certainty) IF those dispositions are present in the impious (adults).

In other words, sanctification/regeneration is internal, and in adults the visible sign of Baptism cannot guarantee the infusion of sanctifying grace; meaning it cannot be “known” with absolute certainty, which is why we do not “canonize” adults who die with or without the sacrament; well, we are not supposed to, anyway.

Lionel wrote:
So there is only one known, visible and repeatable baptism which is that of water.
For numerous religious who make a Profession of Faith, the baptism of desire and blood is assumed to be an exception to the dogma. Justified

For all of the reasons already provided, which you find "acceptable", "the baptism of desire and blood is" NOT "assumed to be an exception to the dogma". You cannot have it both ways.

The sacrament of Baptism is not repeatable, but the increase in sanctification is, which is why a soul who may be justified prior to Baptism receives an increase in grace when he is formally Baptized, as well as receiving, of course, the Baptismal seal of incorporation that equips and empowers him to be able to participate in the life of the Church through the other sacraments. Last I checked, a non-baptized in-water martyr and a catechumen who dies in grace before he can be baptized have no need to participate in the sacramental life of the Church.

Did you know, Lionel, that the only supernatural/theological virtue that remains in heaven is Charity? There is no more “Hope” of salvation, and there is no need of “Faith” when the beatific vision is itself the living Reality of that which we could only “know” by Faith here on earth. Only Love remains, the very essence of eternal beatitude.

Neither is there a “visible” institutional Church that serves as a divine and indispensable “help” towards our final eternal end, but only the one Mystical Church Triumphant which lives as one eternal body in Christ, her Head.

Lionel wrote:

Michael wrote:
When we profess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins we are professing that our Lord instituted one sacrament of baptism for the forgiveness of sins, but we are not professing that the baptisms of blood and desire are not included in the one Baptism, for they certainly are, “in so far as they produce the effect of the Baptism of Water.”

This is one theology. There could be others.If you use the primacy of grace it could be expressed differently. Similalry, if you accept Our Lady as Co Redemptrix and Mediatrix of All Grace it is expressed differently. Though the understanding would be the same.

No, it is not “one theology” and it is not one of many “theologies”, it is one infallible immutable truth that goes right to the heart of a proper understanding of the doctrine of Baptism and unity with the Church. In other words, one cannot, as you do, strip these doctrines from the correct understanding of Baptism and the transmission of sanctifying grace by suggesting that the only known means for the latter is water Baptism. This is like saying Trent Session 6, Ch. 4 is irrelevant to the correct understanding of John 3:5 and to the Church’s dogma on the necessary means of salvation.

In other words, Lionel, you are simply repeating the stale and discredited mantra of the Feeneyites which says the doctrines of the babtisms of blood and desire are debatable and disposable “theological constructs” that may or may not be efficacious towards sanctification, when the Church has infallibly declared that they do IN FACT assure the sanctification and salvation of those who are translated by these forms of extra-sacramental Baptism.

That their internal effects are invisible is about as relevant as the fact that internal sanctification of Baptized members of the Church is invisible. Again and again and again, visible external incorporation in the Church is NOT intrinsic to sanctification and salvation, while the latter is intrinsic, whether it is fulfilled by means of sacramental ablution, or its desire.

Lionel wrote:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (846) has the same message when it says all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church.

All this does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the traditional ecclesiology (theological understanding of Church). For salvation, every one needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church and there are no known exceptions of invincible ignorance, implicit desire, good conscience, seeds of the word, imperfect communion with the Church, etc.

Again, you have twisted traditional ecclesiology by assuming that your rigorous Feeneyite understanding is the “theological understanding of Church”. Your false premise once again assumes that visible incorporation is the only “known” means of sanctification/salvation, and, as I have already demonstrated (several times), this is false, for the Church does IN FACT KNOW that the salvific efficacy of the baptisms of blood and desire ASSURES sanctification/salvation.

That the only KNOWN remedy available to the Church, the ordinary external instrument and sacrament of salvation, is water Baptism, does NOT change this irrefutable infallible fact.

Lionel wrote:
The new theology is false if one assumes there are known exceptions to the traditional understanding of Church according to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

The new (Feeneyite) theology is false if one assumes there are no known exceptions to the traditional understanding of external unity with the Church according to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. For, while no one can be saved outside the Church, one may in fact be saved by being united to the Church in the internal bonds of faith and charity.

This is NOT an “exception” to the dogma, it is part of the dogma, and it is how the Church understands her own dogma. It is ONLY an exception to external Church membership, which, as the Church teaches, is necessary as an extrinsic necessity of means. Incorporation in the Church must be fulfilled, either in reality (reapse), or at least in desire and longing (voto et desiderio).

Lionel wrote:

MRyan wrote:
So, yes, the salvation of this soldier/martyr was an “exception” to the divine precept requiring external membership in the Church,

Yes it is a possibility. If the Church declares someone a martyr or a saint we accept it.

Other cases are hypotehetical. If there are real cases in 2013 we would not know about them. So in the present times there is no exception to the dogma which indicates every one needs to be a visible member of the Church for salvation.

Lionel, please name one case of a baptized adult whose salvation is not “hypothetical”, given that we cannot “know” if he died in a state of grace.

In other words, give me a real case in 2013 we know about, since your entire thesis rests upon the false supposition that we can “know” in 2013 that visible adult members of the Church are saved. Who are they? If their salvation is conditional, just like the non-baptized who may be joined to the Church by an internal unity, than their salvation is only “hypothetical”.

If there are "real cases in 2013 we would not know about them." So, name just one.

Lionel, please name one case of a baptized adult whose salvation is not “hypothetical”, given that we cannot “know” if he died in a state of grace.

In other words, give me a real case in 2013 we know about, since your entire thesis rests upon the false supposition that we can “know” in 2013 that visible adult members of the Church are saved. Who are they? If their salvation is conditional, just like the non-baptized who may be joined to the Church by an internal unity, than their salvation is only “hypothetical”.

If there are "real cases in 2013 we would not know about them." So, name just one.

When I say that we do not know any case of a person saved with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance I mean that these cases are explicit for God only. They are not visible to us.

In the case of the baptism of water it is visible. It is repeatable. It is there before us.

So we cannot say that the baptism of desire etc is an exception to the dogma. Since for it to be an exception it would have to be visible and known, like the baptism of water.

Lionel wrote:
So there is only one known, visible and repeatable baptism which is that of water.
For numerous religious who make a Profession of Faith, the baptism of desire and blood is assumed to be an exception to the dogma. Justified
For all of the reasons already provided, which you find "acceptable", "the baptism of desire and blood is" NOT "assumed to be an exception to the dogma". You cannot have it both ways.

Michael responds:
The sacrament of Baptism is not repeatable, but the increase in sanctification is, which is why a soul who may be justified prior to Baptism receives an increase in grace when he is formally Baptized, as well as receiving, of course, the Baptismal seal of incorporation that equips and empowers him to be able to participate in the life of the Church through the other sacraments. Last I checked, a non-baptized in-water martyr and a catechumen who dies in grace before he can be baptized have no need to participate in the sacramental life of the Church.

Lionel:
'The sacrament of Baptism is not repeatable' ? The Sacrament of Baptism when it is administered is not physically repeatable ?

Again the distinction between in principle and in reality has to be made.

'but the increase in sanctification is,(repeatable)'. In principle only. In faith only we accept this. In fact, physically, we can never know such a case.

Michael
'Last I checked, a non-baptized in-water martyr and a catechumen who dies in grace before he can be baptized have no need to participate in the sacramental life of the Church'

Lionel
In principle ' a non-baptized in-water martyr and a catechumen who dies in grace before he can be baptized', ' can participate in the sacramental life of the Church'. In 2013, in reality, we do not know of any such case.

No, it is not “one theology” and it is not one of many “theologies”, it is one infallible immutable truth that goes right to the heart of a proper understanding of the doctrine of Baptism and unity with the Church. In other words, one cannot, as you do, strip these doctrines from the correct understanding of Baptism and the transmission of sanctifying grace by suggesting that the only known means for the latter is water Baptism. This is like saying Trent Session 6, Ch. 4 is irrelevant to the correct understanding of John 3:5 and to the Church’s dogma on the necessary means of salvation.

I am repeating the traditional theology,( ecclesiology) of every one needing to be a visible member of the Church for salvation and there are no known exceptions.
This is compatible with the Catechism of the Catholic Church (846) saying all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church.

It is compatible with those who say that all salvation comes from Jesus' Sacrifice and it is mediated through Jesus and the Church.

It is compatible since physically we do not know any one in 2013 saved in the so called 'exceptions category' i.e the baptism of desire, invincible ignorance etc.

If you would acknowledge that physically we cannot see these cases then you could also accept that being saved with a good conscience etc in Vatican Council II are not exceptions to the traditional understanding that every one needs to be a visible member of the Church for salvation, in 2013.

Lionel,

Here's the deal:

We cannot "observe" perfect charity.

In the case of martyrdom, we can come close, but even there, we still cannot observe a martyr's interior dispositions. People are martyred all the time for various reasons, many of which have nothing whatsoever to do with the Roman Catholic Faith.

Ditto for someone who dies with the Sacraments, say, Confession and the Anointing of the Sick. In the case of the Sacraments, however, perfect contrition and/or charity is a nice, but not necessary, requirement for receiving the graces of the One and Triune God, and hence, eternal life. In those cases, one's contrition may be "less than perfect."

Timothy McVeigh, when he was executed, did not end his life with perfect charity, however, did he have imperfect contrition? My wife, watching CNN after McVeigh's lethal injection, told me about all the Protestant ministers who were on the air saying that "Tim McVeigh burns in hell"; it was a lone Catholic priest who suggested that McVeigh may have gone to Purgatory. It was for good reasons that the Father stated this; McVeigh died with the Church's Sacraments, and if he any imperfect contrition, then he received the graces of God through His One and Only Son, Jesus Christ.

Basically, the Holy Office letter teaches us that membership in the Catholic Church is not "optional":

Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.

Now, could there be some exceptions? Certainly, if:

1) "a person is involved in invincible ignorance" AND

2) "a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God..." AND

3) "that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity" AND

4) "unless a person has supernatural faith" AND

5) "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire."

6) "at least he be united to her by desire and longing."

HOWEVER, "they cannot be sure of their salvation", because #1 assumes that the One and Triune God, by His will, will not deliver an "invincibly ignorant" person from his/her ignorance, so as to allow that individual to be culpable for his/her unbelief. And, if they cannot be sure of their salvation, then neither can we.

MRyan wrote:
This is like saying Trent Session 6, Ch. 4 is irrelevant to the correct understanding of John 3:5 and to the Church’s dogma on the necessary means of salvation.

Mike,
You're putting the horse before the cart. You should have said:
"This is like saying John 3:5 is irrelevant to the correct understanding of Trent Session 6, Ch. 4 and to the Church’s dogma on the necessary means of salvation."

John 3:5 is undeniably being used to show how Session 6, Ch. 4 is being understood; not the other way around. When did the Church ever use her reasoning to verify Sacred Scripture; she uses Sacred Scripture to verify her reasoning is in accord with the text. She goes further in this particular case by saying; "For as the Truth says..," meaning; In this case, we understand Scripture exactly as it is written; "unless a man be born again of water" [H2O]..... "he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

Lionel,

Your false ecclesiology leads you to a false premise which says that “Since the 1940's” the “error … being made by most Catholics” holds that “the baptism[s] of [blood and] desire and those saved in invincible ignorance are explicit to us and so are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.”

And, as I have said more than once, this is false and you have not produced a shred of evidence to validate your flawed and errant thesis. If it were true, then it is also true that there are adults members of the Church in 2013 whose salvation is “explicit to us”, when this is also false.

You are confusing the appearance of sanctity and the presumption of good hope with "known" salvation itself, as if "Cardinal Cushing" or anyone else ever said he “knows” of the salvation of certain non-Catholics, or even known Catholics, that “are explicit to us”.

If this were true, we would not pray for their salvation, or commit their souls to God in funeral rites. What would be the point if we can "know" that their salvation is "explicitly known to us"? Cardinal Cushing was liberal on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, but he never presumed to "explicitly know" of the salvation of anyone.

The baptism of desire doctrine does not allow anyone to “know” that the salvation of certain known souls “are explicit to us”, and neither does Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus allow us to “know” of the salvation of certain adults who are known to us. That you consider the former “exceptions ... and so contradicts the dogma" extra ecclesiam nulla salus is simply a straw-man built on a logical fallacy, for there are no “known” adult souls who are saved in 2013, period. Presumption and good hope are not the assurance of salvation, they are precisely what they suggest, and no more.

You keep saying that only God can know if a certain soul is saved apart from visible membership, which suggests that we can know that certain visible adult members are saved, when we can "know" no such thing.

Your entire thesis is built on a straw-man, and crumbles like a house of cards at the first breath of even the most rudimentary objective analysis.

As one error begets another, this one is a whopper:

Lionel wrote:

In principle ‘a non-baptized in-water martyr and a catechumen who dies in grace before he can be baptized', 'can participate in the sacramental life of the Church'. In 2013, in reality, we do not know of any such case.

This is absolutely false. In principle and in reality only baptized members who have received the priestly seal of incorporation can participate in the sacramental life of the Church. Even if we knew with absolute certitude that a catechumen was in a state of grace, he could not participate in the other sacraments until he was visibly incorporated into the Church.

As I said, one error leads to another, and this flagrant error is just the by-product of a poor ecclesiology.

MRyan wrote:And, as I have said more than once, this is false and you have not produced a shred of evidence to validate your flawed and errant thesis. If it were true, then it is also true that there are adults members of the Church in 2013 whose salvation is “explicit to us”, when this is also false.

Mike, I am glad that you are qualifying your statement "adult members," because, of course, an infant who was validly baptized and who dies before the Age of Reason would go to Heaven.

So, the issue here is one of certainty, which is what the Sacraments provide. Consider the SSPX's recent statement on Nostra Aetate:

http://sspx.org/miscellaneous/judaism_and_church_before_and_after_vatican_ii_vennari-1-11-2013/judaism_and_church_before_and_after_vatican_ii_vennari-1-11-2013.htm

Do modern Jews, many of whom are explicit atheists, have a "certain hope" of eternal life even if they refuse, as an act of their own free wills, sacramental Baptism? Is that what Nostra Aetate is saying? Or, as with DH's alleged repudiation of the medieval Catholic Inquisitions, was such something that was "implicit" in Nostra Aetate which is only now being made "explicit"?

More questions, few answers.

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:And, as I have said more than once, this is false and you have not produced a shred of evidence to validate your flawed and errant thesis. If it were true, then it is also true that there are adults members of the Church in 2013 whose salvation is “explicit to us”, when this is also false.

Mike, I am glad that you are qualifying your statement "adult members," because, of course, an infant who was validly baptized and who dies before the Age of Reason would go to Heaven.

So, the issue here is one of certainty, which is what the Sacraments provide.

No, they cannot provide "certainty" that any given baptized adult is in a state of sanctifying grace, which is the whole point. And yes, the subject is adults, and on this particular thread it always has been.

Jehanne wrote:
Consider the SSPX's recent statement on Nostra Aetate:

http://sspx.org/miscellaneous/judaism_and_church_before_and_after_vatican_ii_vennari-1-11-2013/judaism_and_church_before_and_after_vatican_ii_vennari-1-11-2013.htm

Do modern Jews, many of whom are explicit atheists, have a "certain hope" of eternal life even if they refuse, as an act of their own free wills, sacramental Baptism? Is that what Nostra Aetate is saying?

Absolutely not.

Jehanne wrote:
Or, as with DH's alleged repudiation of the medieval Catholic Inquisitions, was such something that was "implicit" in Nostra Aetate which is only now being made "explicit"?

You know that is a gross characterization, for there was only a repudiation of the excesses of the "medieval Catholic Inquisitions".

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
This is like saying Trent Session 6, Ch. 4 is irrelevant to the correct understanding of John 3:5 and to the Church’s dogma on the necessary means of salvation.

Mike,
You're putting the horse before the cart. You should have said:

"This is like saying John 3:5 is irrelevant to the correct understanding of Trent Session 6, Ch. 4 and to the Church’s dogma on the necessary means of salvation."

John 3:5 is undeniably being used to show how Session 6, Ch. 4 is being understood; not the other way around. When did the Church ever use her reasoning to verify Sacred Scripture; she uses Sacred Scripture to verify her reasoning is in accord with the text. She goes further in this particular case by saying; "For as the Truth says..," meaning; In this case, we understand Scripture exactly as it is written; "unless a man be born again of water" [H2O]..... "he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

And this is why, columba, your private interpretation of Scripture and dogma has led you so far astray from the TRUTH that is staring at you from the face of the universal consensus of theologians and from that of the Church herself who has validated the same univocal understanding (as I presented it) time and time again; a univocal understanding that you reject with a singular arrogance that only the likes of a Martin Luther could appreciate.

Wait, next you will be telling us that "John 3:5 is undeniably being used to show how Session 6, Canon XI is being understood", such that, when the canon dogmatically condemned anyone who said "that men are justified" (the "remission of sins') by "the imputation [merits] of of the justice of Christ ... to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them", it did not mean to suggest the anathema applied to anyone who said that
the sins of the OT just were remitted, "to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them".

In other words, Pope Leo XIII was NOT suggesting that when the Holy Ghost applied the merits of Christ to the OT saints for the remission of sins, the same "indwelling" Spirit did not actually "reside by grace" in these same justified but non-sanctified souls whose original injustice was wiped clean by the merits of Christ who was to come.

In other words, you can just make it up as you go, as you always do.

So, yes, Trent is demonstrating how “John 3:5 is undeniably being used to show how Session 6, Ch. 4 is being understood”, which is the same as saying “Trent Session 6, Ch. 4 is relevant to the correct understanding of John 3:5, and to the Church’s dogma on the necessary means of salvation”, for one compliments the other and both sacred tradition (what you call “reasoning”) and sacred Scripture “form one sacred deposit of the Word of God, committed to the Church.” (The Dogmatic Constitution Die Verbum).

“Committed to the Church”, and not committed to columba, who proceeds undaunted to defy the Church and the universal consensus of theologians by telling us that Scripture (John 3:5) is being used to “verify her reasoning” that says no one can be sanctified or saved without “the laver of regeneration and the Holy Ghost” and the desire for it. And thus, Scripture is not then being used to “verify her reasoning” that has always held (ever since justification was dogmatically defined by Trent) that no one can be justified without being born again of water and the Spirit, in re or in voto (by “the desire thereof”); meaning, no one can be justified without water baptism, at least in desire.

That you have the unmitigated gall to tell us “John 3:5 is undeniably being used to show how Session 6, Ch. 4 is being understood” and then proceed to tell us exactly how it is NOT understood, is the stuff of legend. Really, there you are again shaking your “non-servium” fists at the universal consensus of theologians, the official Scripture commentaries; at Pope Innocent III, at the Doctors Albert the Great, Aquinas, Bernard of Clairvaux, Bonaventure, Bellarmine, Catherine, Canisius, Liguori and Theresa; at the Catechism of Trent, at the CCC, at the 1917 and 1983 Codes of Canon law, at Pope St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII, at VCII, etc., etc.

And yet, there you are, a force and magisterium of one (well, you and Duckbill) telling us how the Church understands John 3:5 and how she understands her own dogmatic texts that dogmatically reject once and for all (allegedly) the Doctors and the doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas that has been universally accepted, even and especially after the Council of Trent.

You must really get a good laugh at testimonies such as this, from St. Catherine of Sienna:

Dialogue of St. Catherine: Baptisms:

"I wished thee to see the secret of the Heart, showing it to thee open, so that you mightest see how much more I loved than I could show thee by finite pain. I poured from it Blood and Water, to show thee the baptism of water which is received in virtue of the Blood. I also showed the baptism of love in two ways, first in those who are baptized in their blood shed for Me which has virtue through My Blood, even if they have not been able to have Holy Baptism, and also those who are baptized in fire, not being able to have Holy Baptism, but desiring it with the affection of love. There is no baptism of desire without the Blood, because Blood is steeped in and kneaded with the fire of Divine charity, because through love was it shed. There is yet another way by which the soul receives the baptism of Blood, speaking, as it were, under a figure, and this way the Divine charity provided, knowing the infirmity and fragility of an, through which he offends, not that he is obliged, through his fragility and infirmity, to commit sin, unless he wish to do so; by falling, as he will, into the guild of mortal sin, by which he loses the grace which he drew from Holy Baptism in virtue of the Blood, it was necessary to leave a continual baptism of blood. This the Divine charity provided in the Sacrament of Holy Confession, the soul receiving the Baptism of blood, with contrition of heart, confessing, when able, to My ministers, who hold the keys of the Blood, sprinkling It, in absolution, upon the face of the soul. But if the soul is unable to confess, contrition of heart is sufficient for this baptism, the hand of My clemency giving you the fruit of this precious Blood... Thou seest then that these Baptisms, which you should all receive until the last moment, are continual, and though My works, that is the pains of the Cross were finite, the fruit of them which you receive in Baptism, through Me, are infinite..."

Michael
Your false ecclesiology leads you to a false premise which says that “Since the 1940's” the “error … being made by most Catholics” holds that “the baptism[s] of [blood and] desire and those saved in invincible ignorance are explicit to us and so are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.”

Lionel:
Ecclesiology
Every one in 2013 needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church for salvation and there are no known exceptions.

False premise
The dead are visible to us.
Or
The deceased saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire are visible to us.

Conclusion:
So the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Please tell me what is false about it. Earlier you have agreed on what is the false premise.
Also please qualify when possible, with the words in principle or in fact, in reality. Often you state I have said something when I do not know what you are talking about . Without specifying may be like (in principle) , (in fact, in reality), you could go into a theological tangent.Though you would appear rational I wouldn't know what you are saying.

Michael wrote elsewhere on this forum:
it is true that "Every one needs to be a visible member of the Church, with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water (AG 7) to go to Heaven and avoid Hell."

The fact that he was not a visible member of the Church, or was not visible to us, is entirely irrelevant to his unity with the Mystical Body in voto, and his salvation.

The premise is simple.

Michael says elsewhere
Pope Leo XIII did not declare that the sacraments were the only means of sanctification, he said, rather, "in man, nothing is more internal than heavenly grace which begets sanctity, but the ordinary and chief means of obtaining grace are external: that is to say, the sacraments".

And this is precisely why Pope Pius XII could teach, with the Doctors and Tradition, "An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism

".

Lionel:
(Yes.In principle)

If you were to claim that 'an act of love...' is visible then you would be using the false premise. You would be iimplying that you know such a person personally .

So if I discuss the above passage aware that I accept it in faith, in principle and if you imply it is a case known in reality there will be confusion.You will be rational and you will assume that your logical conclusions are mine.

Michael:
Since, as St. Thomas teaches, baptism of blood and baptism of desire form an integral part of the "one Baptism",(in principle) and do not destroy its singular integrity, they are not "exceptions" to that which is intrinsic to the salvation dogma,(what is intrinsic for the salvation dogma for you please qualify) but only to the divine precepts (which divine precepts are you referring to) that are extrinsically necessary as necessity of means(please qualify) (the institutional Church and the Sacraments).

Nowhere does this correct teaching by the Church on the salvation dogmas “imply” an “explicit, visible baptism of desire”,( I am referring to a physically visible baptism of desire.This is out of the realm of theology) except, for example, in the case of the Catechumen who makes his intentions known.( I am referring to a physically visible baptism of desire just as there is a physically visible baptism of water) His actual salvation, however, is no more “explicit and visible” than that of a baptized adult Catholic.(the issue is :is the baptism of desire etc an exception to the dogma and not if the baptism of water is an exception to the dogma)

Lionel
His actual salvation is not physically visible to us so we cannot see any such case physically. Since we cannot see any such case phyically we cannot consider these cases exceptions.If something does not exist it cannot be an exception.

If it is an exception then you are using the false premise of being able to see these cases physically.

If you cannot see such a case in person then there are no known exceptions to the traditional ecclesiology of Fr.Leonard Feeney.

Lionel wrote:
When we profess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins we are professing that our Lord instituted one sacrament of baptism for the forgiveness of sins, but we are not professing that the baptisms of blood and desire are not included in the one Baptism, for they certainly are, “in so far as they produce the effect of the Baptism of Water.”
Acceptable.
After saying it is a contradiction to the dogma, you now find the same doctrine of Aquinas and the Church acceptable.

I’m glad we could clear up that misunderstanding so easily!

Lionel
Michael I haven't a clue to what you are saying here.

After saying it is a contradiction to the dogma, you now find the same doctrine of Aquinas and the Church acceptable.

I am speaking of the baptism of desire being physically visible to us or not. You are talking in the theological realm.

For me the following is also acceptable.

When we profess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins we are professing that our Lord instituted one sacrament of baptism for the forgiveness of sins, but we are not professing that the baptisms of blood and desire are not included in the one Baptism, for they certainly are, “in so far as they produce the effect of the Baptism of Water, likewise with being saved with a good conscience (LG 16), elements of sanctifiation(LG , seeds of the word(AG) etc.”
Would you agree ?

Also,

When we profess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins we are professing that our Lord instituted one sacrament of baptism for the forgiveness of sins, but we are not professing that the baptisms of blood and desire are not included in the one Baptism, for they certainly are, “in so far as they produce the effect of the Baptism of Water- and so there are not three known baptisms but one known baptism, which is the baptism of water.

Would you agree?

Michael says
You have not been able to demonstrate where the SSPX, the FSSP or the Catholic Church have ever suggested that “we can assume the dead are saved and visible”.

Lionel
Regarding the SSPX I have provided you the quotation of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and how the SSPX supporters assume that he is referring to an actual case physically visible.If it was not a case of the dead saved and actually visible to us then it would not be an exception.

Then I gave you the example of an e-mail communication on Rorate Caeili between an SSPX supporter and Bro.Andre Marie MCIM, Prior of the St.Benedict Center.The SSPX supporter assumed that the baptism of desire contradicted Fr.Leonard Feeney's literal interpretation of the dogma. So for him every one did not have to become a visible member of the Catholic Church for salvation. Since the saints, mentioned the baptism of desire and of course for him, these cases were visible, to be exceptions to the traditional understanding of the dogma.So for him, the saints contradicted Fr.Leonard Feeney.

In both cases the error is assuming that we can physically see cases of the baptism of desire.

The same error is made by the FSSP and Novus Ordo priests.

The notion is irrational and in fact, flat out silly. Have you presented your thesis to anyone at the FSSP or the SSPX? If so, have you received a response? If not, perhaps you should consider that they may not be taking you seriously. I'm being kind.

Lionel:
On my blog I have listed the statements of many priests who say that there is no visible baptism of desire and so these cases are not relevant to the dogma. Most of these priests offer Mass in the vernacular.

Then recently two priests of the SSPX agreed that implicit salvation is never visible and so these cases are not known to us and so cannot be relevant to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Michael:
One of your errors posits that the objective component of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus that requires visible external membership in the Catholic Church “which men enter through Baptism as through a door”

Lionel:
Yes the dogma indicates all need to be visible members of the Church.

Michael
is THE definition of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus,

Lionel:
I don't know what definition are you talking about.

Michael:
and that internal unity with the Church by faith, charity and desire are “exceptions” to the dogma.

Lionel:
Again there is confusion here since you do not qualify if you mean in principle or physically, in reality.In fact.

Michael
But, as I keep telling you, internal unity with the Church(in principle or in fact and visible) is not an “exception”, it is an integral part of the same dogma (the text of the dogma or the definition by the popes ex cathedra does not mention any exceptions.) for without them there is no salvation whether one is visibly united to the Church, or not.(for them there is no salvation whether one is visibly united or not??)

Michael
If I were to ask you if a profession of the true faith is part of the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, you would have to say yes, since no one can be a member of the Church without such a profession. But if I were to ask you if the profession of faith by a baptized Catholic is proof of visible salvation, you would have to say no. You may say that it is evidence of a state of grace, but you cannot know he is saved – for his faith may very well be dead, and his external membership cannot save him.

Lionel
(O.K Fine in principle. In fact we do not know any such case.So why do you mention it ?)

Michael
So why do you accuse the Church, the SSPX and the FSSP of holding to a “dead men walking” doctrine that sees the visible salvation of souls who may or not be ordained towards the Church while remaining inculpably ignorant of the Church and its necessity for salvation, when they do no such thing?

Lionel:
I am referring to seeing physically you are referring to seeing in principle .There is no dead man walking 'doctrine' .There is assuming that there are exceptions to the dogma and then implying there are known cases on earth.)

Michael
You keep repeating this, and you cannot show me proof. You say that it is “implied”, but is clear that it is implied only by you.

Lionel
If one says there are exceptions to something then it is implied that something must exist to be an exception. This is common knowledge.
_____________________________________________________________

Lionel wrote:
However in two of theological papers of the International Theological Commission he has written that the baptism of desire etc are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Since they are exceptions they must be known.

Michael
Show me where “he has written that the baptism of desire etc are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.” I am willing to wager he said no such thing. In fact, I know he said no such thing. Once again, you are simply imposing your errant belief that the “dogma” says there is no salvation without visible water baptism, period.

Lionel

International Theological Commission (ITC)

10. Exclusivist ecclesiocentrism—the fruit of a specific theological system or of a mistaken understanding of the phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus—is no longer defended by Catholic theologians after the clear statements of Pius XII and Vatican Council II on the possibility of salvation for those who do not belong visibly to the Church (cf, e.g., LG 16; GS 22).-International Theological Commission, Christianity and the World Religions 1997. (1)
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1997_cristianesimo-religioni_en.html

MRyan wrote:No, they cannot provide "certainty" that any given baptized adult is in a state of sanctifying grace, which is the whole point.

The individual receiving sacramental Baptism (for the first and only time) or the Sacrament of Reconciliation no longer has to ask himself/herself, "Was my contrition perfect?" That's the problem with Protestantism; those who embrace OSAS are either embracing a heretical and false belief (and, along with it, a "false sense of security") or they are walking around wondering, "Is my faith strong enough, sincere enough, etc.?" In this respect, the Sacraments provide an individual Catholic with some certainty that person would have lacked without the Sacraments.

Lionel wrote:

His actual salvation [the catechumen’s] is not physically visible to us so we cannot see any such case physically. Since we cannot see any such case phyically we cannot consider these cases exceptions. If something does not exist it cannot be an exception.

If it is an exception then you are using the false premise of being able to see these cases physically.

If you cannot see such a case in person then there are no known exceptions to the traditional ecclesiology of Fr.Leonard Feeney.

But I can see the Catechumen the Church already considers to be “IN” the Church as one of her own (but not yet as a formal member), but I cannot see his salvation, just as I cannot see the salvation of a baptized adult.

Again, show me in 2013 the "physically visible salvation" of a baptized adult. Why are you avoiding this, and why the double standard?

Do you not see the blatant error in logic? The salvation of an adult is not visible to us, period. His membership in the Church may be visible; and his faith, charity and good intentions may be visible, but his assured salvation is NOT visible.

What is it that you do not understand?

When you say "If it is an exception then you are using the false premise of being able to see these cases physically; the "cases" you are explicitly referring to involve the visible and physical "salvation" of a catechumen, which you say, "is not physically visible to us".

And I say again, so what, neither is the salvation of a baptized adult visible to us.

You wrote: "Since we cannot see any such case phyically we cannot consider these cases exceptions. If something does not exist it cannot be an exception."

In the case of baptized adults you are referring only to visible membership, and not about visible salvation, but when you talk about Catechumens, you speak about visible salvation, and not visible unity IN the Church, if not yet as formal members.

So, in the case of the latter, you simply conflate visible membership with visible salvation, and accuse certain parties of seeing "dead men walking" - the visible salvation of non-Church members - which is simply a fabrication of your vivid imagination. You have yet to provide any specific examples of the "visible salvation" of a non-Catholic which is supposedly taught by certain parties traditional parties.

It would be nice to see the actual evidence, if you know what I mean.

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:No, they cannot provide "certainty" that any given baptized adult is in a state of sanctifying grace, which is the whole point.

The individual receiving sacramental Baptism (for the first and only time) or the Sacrament of Reconciliation no longer has to ask himself/herself, "Was my contrition perfect?" That's the problem with Protestantism; those who embrace OSAS are either embracing a heretical and false belief (and, along with it, a "false sense of security") or they are walking around wondering, "Is my faith strong enough, sincere enough, etc.?" In this respect, the Sacraments provide an individual Catholic with some certainty that person would have lacked without the Sacraments.

That is all true, Jehanne, but it is not entirely relevant to this topic. Your internal dispositions may very well provide the good confidence that your sins have been forgiven and that you are in a state of grace; but, objectively, this is NOT the absolute assurance of "visible salvation".

Lionel is accusing certain known traditional parties of "seeing" the "visible salvation" of non-members of the Catholic Church, when you and I both know that the clergy of the SSPX, the FSSP and the CMRI would never teach such heterodoxy.

Lionel wrote:

Mryan wrote:
Show me where “he has written that the baptism of desire etc are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.” I am willing to wager he said no such thing. In fact, I know he said no such thing. Once again, you are simply imposing your errant belief that the “dogma” says there is no salvation without visible water baptism, period.

International Theological Commission (ITC)

10. Exclusivist ecclesiocentrism—the fruit of a specific theological system or of a mistaken understanding of the phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus—is no longer defended by Catholic theologians after the clear statements of Pius XII and Vatican Council II on the possibility of salvation for those who do not belong visibly to the Church (cf, e.g., LG 16; GS 22).-International Theological Commission, Christianity and the World Religions 1997. (1)

Lionel,

I am afraid you are only proving my point. A “specific theological system" or "a mistaken understanding" of the phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus” is just that, and it is NOT the correct understanding of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. That certain (very few) exclusivist theologians held this “specific theological system” does not a dogma make, and neither St. Thomas Aquinas nor any other Doctor is on record as holding this “exclusivist ecclesiocentrism” that holds that only visible members of the Church can be saved.

Not even Fr. Michael Mueller, who is held in high esteem by the St. Benedict Center, taught such an “exclusivist ecclesiocentrism”, and he was clearly opposed to Fr. Feeney in this regard.

You are accusing Gerhard Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, of having “written that the baptism of desire etc are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus”, when the only “exception” you are actually referring to is an "exception" to a long discredited exclusivist system that is no longer defended by Catholic theologians.

What the ITC report is saying is that Pope Pius II and VCII gave magisterial support to the correct understanding of the dogma as it was and is commonly understood by the Schools and the theologians - for centuries on end.

Lionel,

St. Robert Bellarmine asks and answers this question:

“How then are catechumens saved if they are outside the Church?’ He answers: “When it is said that no one is saved outside the Church, this should be understood of those who do not belong to the Church either in reality or in desire, as theologians commonly say about Baptism. But since catechumens are in the Church, if not really (re), at least in desire (voto), they can be saved. Nor is there any valid objection in the analogy of Noe’s ark, outside of which no one was saved, since analogies are not perfect in all respects.”

But, St. Bellarmine was mistaken, wasn’t he, Lionel, for the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus has nothing to do with salvation by, through and IN the Church, “if not really (re), at least in desire (voto)", it is concerned only with visible external membership in the Church (in re), outside of which there is no salvation.

Anything else, like being saved in the Church in desire (voto) by extra-sacramental means is “theology”, and irrelevant to the dogma, which is boiled down to a divine precept.

Have I got that right? So whenever the Church tells us (in similar fashion to St. Bellarmine) how we are to understand the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, whenever she speaks about being joined to Christ (and His Church) by extra-sacramental means, she has strayed from the true dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, and is delving into matters “theological” having nothing to do with the true dogma of visible membership in the Church.

In other words, as you say, the dogmas of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus has nothing actually to do with how one is saved IN the Church, but only with visible membership itself, which is the only prerequisite for salvation that the Church “knows” of, and she “knows” of nothing else that can assure anyone of salvation apart from visible membership, and the sacramental door (in re) to the same.

Is it possible, Lionel, that your private interpretation of the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is seriously flawed?

Lionel wrote:

Ecclesiology: Every one in 2013 needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church for salvation and there are no known exceptions.

False premise: The dead are visible to us.
Or: The deceased saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire are visible to us.

Conclusion: So the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Please tell me what is false about it. Earlier you have agreed on what is the false premise.

Simple, the salvation of those who died in baptism of desire, or as baptized members of the Church, is NOT visible to us.

We can see the visible members of the Church; we cannot see the salvation of visible adult members.

Please, point one out to me, if you would.

We can see the faith, charity and good intentions of a Catechumen; we cannot see his salvation, and I know of no one among the traditionalist sects/groups who says we can.

Infallible Doctrine:

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

Lionel wrote:

Michael wrote:
If I were to ask you if a profession of the true faith is part of the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, you would have to say yes, since no one can be a member of the Church without such a profession. But if I were to ask you if the profession of faith by a baptized Catholic is proof of visible salvation, you would have to say no. You may say that it is evidence of a state of grace, but you cannot know he is saved – for his faith may very well be dead, and his external membership cannot save him.

O.K Fine in principle. In fact we do not know any such case. So why do you mention it?

But you miss the point; if we do not know of any such case, neither do we know of any such case in 2013 where someone is saved in baptism of desire. But in both cases, we know that if someone dies in a state of grace, he is assured of salvation. That is not “theology”, that is part of the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, which is concerned solely with the means and instruments for attaining the grace of salvation.

Lionel wrote:

Michael wrote:
So why do you accuse the Church, the SSPX and the FSSP of holding to a “dead men walking” doctrine that sees the visible salvation of souls who may or not be ordained towards the Church while remaining inculpably ignorant of the Church and its necessity for salvation, when they do no such thing?

I am referring to seeing physically you are referring to seeing in principle. There is no dead man walking 'doctrine'. There is assuming that there are exceptions to the dogma and then implying there are known cases on earth.

No, I am referring to physicality, not to principle when I say there is no such case of “seeing” the visible salvation that takes place in baptism of desire; neither can we “see” the visible salvation of any baptized adult Catholic.

“They” are assuming there are exceptions to the divine precept on Church membership, but they are NOT assuming there is an exception to the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus whereby no one can be saved outside the Church, where salvation must take place in reality (formal membership), or at least in desire (votum).

Lionel wrote:
On my blog I have listed the statements of many priests who say that there is no visible baptism of desire and so these cases are not relevant to the dogma. Most of these priests offer Mass in the vernacular.

Sorry, Lionel, but I suspect you are misrepresenting what they are actually saying. I do not read your blog, but going by what you have presented here, I can almost guarantee they are referring only to the objective requirements for visible membership, and not to the greater dogma that does not preclude internal unity with the Church.

If you asked these same priests if they can see the Catechumen who is considered to be IN the Church by his very desire, intention and longing, they would say yes, and that the Church considers the Catechumen already as one of her own. But, if you asked them if it follows that we can see his visible salvation should he die without the sacrament of baptism, they would say, to a man, no, of course not.

So, again, when you say these priests say that baptism of desire is not relevant to the dogma, I am willing to wager that they are referring only to the objective requirements for visible membership, and not to the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus as it is understood and taught by the Church; even "the Church" prior to VCII, and prior to 1940.

Lionel wrote:Then recently two priests of the SSPX agreed that implicit salvation is never visible and so these cases are not known to us and so cannot be relevant to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

I have no idea what "implicit salvation" even means, but again, they would have said "implicit desire" is not relevant to the objective requirements of visible membership, and I can guarantee you that these same priests would say that the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus does NOT limit itself to external membership (re), but includes internal incorporation in voto.

If you do not believe me, Lionel, provide the name, email address and response of just one SSPX priest, and the exact question you asked him, and I'll follow up with a question of my own, and post the response here (if I get one). You can PM with his address if you corresponded by private email.

Not to beat a dead horse (that still appears to have plenty of life!), Lionel, but I think your fundamental error is on display below:

Lionel wrote:

[A] When I say that we do not know any case of a person saved with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance I mean that these cases are explicit for God only. They are not visible to us.

[B] In the case of the baptism of water it is visible. It is repeatable. It is there before us.

You have yet to answer why any of this is relevant when A refers to visible salvation and B refers to visible Church membership; and when it is also true that the salvation of those in B is “explicit for God only.”

Yet you add “salvation” to A when you do not add it to B; meaning, you are comparing apples to oranges.

Why?

If you want to compare apples to apples, [A] should read:

When I say that we do not know any case of a person incorporated into the Church with the baptism of desire, I mean that these cases are known to God only. They are not visible to us.

But, I would respond, once again, that the Catechumen is very much visible to us, and is considered to be IN the Church, even if not yet as a formal member.

And, btw, faith, charity and good intentions are observable and repeatable, "it is there before us".

Lionel wrote:

I am repeating the traditional theology, (ecclesiology) of every one needing to be a visible member of the Church for salvation and there are no known exceptions.
This is compatible with the Catechism of the Catholic Church (846) saying all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church.

The traditional theology (ecclesiology) indeed says that everyone is in need of visible membership in the Church for salvation, and there are no known exceptions available to the “sacrament of salvation” (the Church) that can satisfy this necessity, which is necessary as both precept and means.

As a necessity of precept, traditional theology (ecclesiology) says that this particular necessity is not binding should some unavoidable obstacle prevent external incorporation. And, at the same time, as an extrinsic necessity of means, traditional theology (ecclesiology) says that incorporation can be fulfilled in voto when it cannot be realized in re.

So there is an "exception" to the divine precept by which we mean the obligation is lifted when it cannot be fulfilled; and, as an extrinsic necessity of means (no exceptions), the obligation can be fulfilled in voto when necessity dictates, and the proper dispositions are present.

As such, the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus retains its true meaning as the Church has always understood it, “there is no salvation outside the Church.”

Lionel wrote:

It is compatible with those who say that all salvation comes from Jesus' Sacrifice and it is mediated through Jesus and the Church.

Yes, but when the same Catechism (847) says that the objective necessity of visible membership “is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church”, she is not making an exception to the dogma, or "theorizing" about another doctrine, she is conveying the truth of the entire dogma when she teaches:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

And this salvation may be achieved only by supernatural Faith vivified by charity, and by being united to the Church in reality, or at least in desire.

Lionel,

I still believe that you are trying to express, stress and reconcile the importance of ALL in the Church to teach properly No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church and Baptism of Water with clarity and accuracy. I think that you you get bogged down in your "dead man walking" concept.

MRyan said:
The traditional theology (ecclesiology) indeed says that everyone is in need of visible membership in the Church for salvation, and there are no known exceptions available to the “sacrament of salvation” (the Church) that can satisfy this necessity, which is necessary as both precept and means.

As a necessity of precept, traditional theology (ecclesiology) says that this particular necessity is not binding should some unavoidable obstacle prevent external incorporation. And, at the same time, as an extrinsic necessity of means, traditional theology (ecclesiology) says that incorporation can be fulfilled in voto when it cannot be realized in re.

I believe that the " ...should some unavoidable obstacle prevent external incorporation" as a key phrase. This still must mean that ALL in the Church must teach NSOCC and Baptism by water so that those IN the Church are NOT derelict in teaching the Faith and are part of the reason or worse the cause that someone may have an unavoidable obstacle to prevent them from external incorporation. For example Lionel, if you and I in our discussions with someone tell them that are called to be Catholics and must have baptism by water, then we have done our part in helping that they will not find themselves in a position that some unavoidable obstacle will prevent them from external incorporation into the one true Church outside which there is no salvation. I would say if we do this with explanation, discussion, facts, love and charity that we are living and teaching our faith and greatly reducing the possibilities for some unavoidable obstacle to occur. Having said that we still leave judgement to God as it must and should be. If those in the Church do not teach the faith we encourage the possibilities of baptism of blood, baptism of desire and Invincible Ignorance by being lax in spreading and teaching our Faith. Therefore why would we deny or be sceptical of salvation to those who are worthy as seen by God. If we do not share our Faith we may very well loose it. Being Catholic means being VERY unselfish !

MRyan also said: “is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church”, she is not making an exception to the dogma, or "theorizing" about another doctrine, she is conveying the truth of the entire dogma ...."

I see the key phrase here being "through no fault of their own" as the key words and therefore let ALL in the Church be certain in what they that teach are not responsible for some soul having fault because they were not taught that there is NSOCC or that you must have baptism by water.

Lionel, quite simply let us reverse the equation and say that if someone asked you or I if they could be saved by baptism of blood, baptism of desire or Invincible Ignorance, after we have had "our discussion" we could simply ask them to finish this sentence : The Catholic Church teaches that there is No........................... and that you must have Baptism by.......... If they did not agree or chose not too believe would they have an unavoidable obstacle or no fault of their own? This then goes forward into the mercies and judgement of God from here, Catecumens not withstanding

Let us all teach the Faith !


JMJ,

George

If one says there are exceptions to something then it is implied that something must exist to be an exception. This is common knowledge.

Zero cases of something are not exceptions- John Martigioni

In reality there are no known cases of persons saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.

In principle we accept the possibilty of a person being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire and these cases would be known, visible, only to God.

Every one needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church and there are no known exceptions.

If there are no known exceptions there are no exceptions to the dogma.

There are no known exceptions to every one needing to be a visible member of the Church for salvation, to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.
__________________________________________________

Michael:
Show me where “he has written that the baptism of desire etc are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.” I am willing to wager he said no such thing. In fact, I know he said no such thing. Once again, you are simply imposing your errant belief that the “dogma” says there is no salvation without visible water baptism, period.

Lionel:
International Theological Commission (ITC)
10. Exclusivist ecclesiocentrism—the fruit of a specific theological system or of a mistaken understanding of the phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus—is no longer defended by Catholic theologians after the clear statements of Pius XII and Vatican Council II on the possibility of salvation for those who do not belong visibly to the Church (cf, e.g., LG 16; GS 22).-International Theological Commission, Christianity and the World Religions 1997. (Emphasis added)


'after the clear statements of Pius XII and Vatican Council II on the possibility of salvation for those who do not belong visibly to the Church'

There is no more Exclusivist ecclesiocentrism because of the possibility of salvation for those who do not belong to the Church?

This possibility of a person being saved with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance is a fact, in reality ? We know these cases, they are visible to us ? They would have to be visible to us for them to contradict the dogma which taught there is exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church.

So now every one does not have to be a visible member of the Catholic Church since 'the possibility of salvation' is known in reality ?

The baptism of desire which can only be accepted in principle is now known defacto, explicitly.It is no more hypothetical and accepted in theory, in faith but it is physically seen and personally known?

And where does Pope Pius XII or the Letter of the Holy Office state that these possibilities are known exceptions to the dogma or that we can see these cases in real life ?

Michael,
The following two questions are not dealt with and you have gone into a theological swirl of which I cannot keep track off.

For me the following is also acceptable.

When we profess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins we are professing that our Lord instituted one sacrament of baptism for the forgiveness of sins, but we are not professing that the baptisms of blood and desire are not included in the one Baptism, for they certainly are, “in so far as they produce the effect of the Baptism of Water, likewise with being saved with a good conscience (LG 16), elements of sanctifiation(LG , seeds of the word(AG) etc.”
Would you agree ?

Also,

When we profess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins we are professing that our Lord instituted one sacrament of baptism for the forgiveness of sins, but we are not professing that the baptisms of blood and desire are not included in the one Baptism, for they certainly are, “in so far as they produce the effect of the Baptism of Water- and so there are not three known baptisms but one known baptism, which is the baptism of water.

Would you agree?
.

International Theological Commision
from 'The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without being baptized'

58. In the face of new problems and situations and of an exclusive interpretation of the adage: “salus extra ecclesiam non est”,[88] the magisterium, in recent times, has articulated a more nuanced understanding as to the manner in which a saving relationship with the Church can be realized.

Lionel:
'a more nuanced understanding' based on in principle cases being known in reality ?

The present Magisterium assumes that we know cases of persons saved in invincible ignorance and so it is a defacto exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? This is factually incorrect. We do not know those who are in Heaven except for the saints.
On this faulty premise a whole theology has been built up i.e the visibly-known cases of those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.

International Theological Commision
The Allocution of Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quadam (1854) clearly states the issues involved: “It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it, will perish in the flood. On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who live in ignorance of the true religion, if such ignorance be invincible, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord”.
Lionel:
The Allocution of Pope PIus IX clearly does not state in the passage cited above that those saved in invincible ignorance are explicitly known and so are exceptions to the dogma which says whoever does not enter into the Church will perish.

International Theological Commission
59. The Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston (1949) offers further specifications. “To gain eternal salvation, it is not always required that a person be incorporated in reality (reapse) as a member of the Church, but it is necessary that one belong to it at least in desire and longing (voto et desiderio). It is not always necessary that this desire be explicit as it is with catechumens.

Lionel:
Yes in principle a person can be saved with the baptism of desire. In reality, explicitly we do not know any case of a person saved in Heaven with the baptism of desire. So it is not an issue with respect to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The ITC is mixing up in principle, for in fact, de jure for defacto, in theory for in practise, what is hypothetical for something known personally, the invisible with being seeing physically.

____________________________________

George
The Catholic Church teaches that there is No........................... and that you must have Baptism by..........


If you are saying the Catholic Church teaches that there is No baptism of desire and that you must have Baptism by water only then this needs to be qualified.
Since the Catholic Church does teach that there is a baptism of desire.

Lionel wrote:
[A] When I say that we do not know any case of a person saved with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance I mean that these cases are explicit for God only. They are not visible to us.

[B] In the case of the baptism of water it is visible. It is repeatable. It is there before us.
You have yet to answer why any of this is relevant when A refers to visible salvation and B refers to visible Church membership; and when it is also true that the salvation of those in B is “explicit for God only.”

Lionel:
This is relevant since it is generally assumed, icluding on this forum, that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Similarly it is assumed that Vatican Council II LG 16 on innvincible ignorance and a good conscience are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. In other words since they are exceptions these cases miust exist so that they are visible to every body.

On the other hand the baptism of water is not considered an exception to anything.No one says that there are exceptions to the dogma because of the baptism of water,
____________________________________________
Michael

But, I would respond, once again, that the Catechumen is very much visible to us,( in principle) and is considered to be IN the Church, (in principle )even if not yet as a formal member. ( in principle). So this Catechumen is not a case we personally know in 2013 since we do not personally know any Catechumen saved this year or last year.Since if this case does not exist it is irrelevant to the dogma.

Michael
And, this also means that far from finding the doctrine of Aquinas and that of the Church “acceptable” in that “the unity of Baptism is not destroyed” with the baptisms of blood and desire,

Lionel
The unity of baptism is not destrpoyed with the baptisms of blood and desire since it comes from one source of grace.However I am willing to extend this grace to also those who are saved with a good conscience(LG 16), elements of sanctification(LG etc.
Why do you hesitate to comment on this? These are all cases of implicit salvation (implicit for us).They are all possibilities of salvation?

_________________________________________

Michael
you once again say these are “exceptions” to the dogma,

Lionel:
There are no exceptions to Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441.The baptism of desire, invincible ignorance, elements of sanctification(LG etc are not exceptions. They are just possibilities.

They would be exceptions if there were actual real cases known to us. SInce there are no known cases, zero cases of something cannot be exceptions. This is common knowledge and not theology.

Michael
the latter of which says, allegedly, that there is only one “known” and “visible” Baptism by which one can be saved,

Lionel:
It says there is only one baptism which is visible. It does not say there is only one baptism by which one can be saved.

Michael:
when it actually says there is only one sacrament of Baptism (that we profess) that makes one a visible member of the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation

.

Lionel:
There is only one visible Sacrament of baptism that we profess that makes one a visible member of the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation.

Michael
However, visible membership [“incorporated in reality (reapse)"] is not an intrinsic prerequisite for unity with Christ and salvation [one may “belong to it at least in desire and longing (voto et desiderio)"],

Lionel:
Agreed.

Michael
so it is a simple logical fallacy to hold that because no one can be a visible “known” member of the Church without the sacrament of Baptism, and, because there is no salvation outside the Church, it “infallibly” follows that no one can be saved without actual sacramental ablution.

Lionel:
A fallacy.

Michael:
Again, the Catechumen who is presumed to be properly disposed (in the external forum) is already “known” to the Church as one of her own, even if he will not be “known” to be formally incorporated until the rite(s) of initiation is completed.

What am I saying? I am saying that while the visible sacrament of Baptism works internally ex opere operanto, the one essential effect that can be frustrated by the recipient is his "desire" for the sacrament. Meaning, he may externally manifest his desire, but his is a false desire if he not properly disposed for the reception of grace. As I said, a still-born member of the Church is still a visible member of the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation.

Lionel:
The issue is : is the baptism of desire an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and not if the baptism of desire exists and how it works.

Michael:
And you said the subject is NOT salvation? That is like saying the subject of the divine/ecclesiastical precept to attend Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation is NOT the Commandment to keep holy the Lord's day. No, it's all about external attendance at Mass, outside of which there is no keeping the Lord's day holy.

Lionel:
'And you said the subject is NOT salvation?' I do not know in which context you are mentioning this or where I did say this.

Michael:
In its most extensive treatment of the subject, The Hope of Salvation for Infants who Die Without Being Baptized, the ITC never once says “that the baptism of desire etc are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus”, but says, rather,

Lionel:
Michael I restricted myself to just one paragraph of the ITC paper which indicated that there was a baptism of desire which was an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney. If it was an exception then of course it means , the exception exists.We can see or personally know this exception. The baptism of desire is a possibility but it is not an exception.

There are no exceptions to every one needing to be a visible member of the Church for salvation as taught by Fr.Leonard Feeney, the Councils, popes and saints.