Saturday, November 24, 2012

SEDEVACANTIST ASKS

Sedevacantist:
You've done nothing but explained why we reject VII. There are NO previous papal teachings on "baptism of desire", "invincible ignorance", or salvation-outside the Church;


Lionel:
 Even if there were teachings on baptism of desire or there were no teachings on it, baptism of desire/implicit desire does not contradict the dogma since they are always implicit and unknown to us.

Sedevacantist:

which even though you've tried to show your Church (VII Church) teaches NO salvation outside the Church, you've laid out how souls ARE saved outside the Church.


Lionel:
 We accept the possibility of a person being saved with implicit desire etc, the Council of Trent mentions it as do the Church Fathers and the popes.

For you these cases are explicit and so are exceptions to the dogma for me and Catholic Tradition these cases are always implicit.
So even if they ARE saved it is irrelevant to the dogmatic teaching.


Sedevacantist:
The very things you mention "b.o.d", "invincible ignorance" are just absurd ways of teaching that a person does not need the Catholic faith for salvation.


Lionel:
This would be the understanding if these cases were explicit. Since they are not known to us they are not exceptions to anything.

Sedevacantist:
It is a dogma that every human creature must hold the Catholic faith and be baptized (As It Is Written) for salvation.


Lionel:
Yes and this is the literal interpretation of the dogma which we hold to. It is compatible with Vatican Council II. The dogma Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441 is not opposed to implicit salvation known only to God.
-Lionel Andrades

COULD THE MAGISTERIUM BE IN DOCTRINAL ERROR BEFORE AN EXCOMMUNICATION?











The Archbishops of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in interviews with the National Catholic Register have expressed the false premise.


They imply that the dead saved are visible. So they are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

So for them Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma on salvation and the Syllabus of Errors.They want to extend this irrationality, of the visible dead saved premise,to the SSPX.


Since their interpretation of Vatican Council II uses this  irrationality, of being able to see cases of non Catholics saved with invincible ignorance and elements of sanctification etc,  Vatican Council II emerges as non traditional.


They expect the SSPX to accept this non traditional interpretation or be penalized for being faithful to the Faith according to Tradition and the Magisterium of the past.


Can the Magisterium today teach that a defined dogma is contradicted by known exceptions? These exceptions are allegedly ghosts visible to us ?


Is this not heresy? Is the SSPX expected to accept this heresy?


Do the SSPX and other Catholics have to deny the Nicene Creed(I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin).This would mean the Creed is interpreted as saying ,"I believe in three known baptisms for the forgiveness of sin, the baptism of water, desire and blood'.

Reason tells us that only the baptism of water is known.It is visible and can be repeated. We cannot administer the baptism of desire. The baptism of desire and blood are known only to God.

Since these cases are known only to God how can they contradict the dogma which says all need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell ? How can they contradict Ad Gentes 7 and  Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II  which says faith and baptism are needed for all for salvation.

According to the CDF Archbishops  Vatican Council II contradicts itself and it contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It also contradicts the Magisterium of Pope John Paul II. The SSPX has to accept all this or be excommunicated ?
-Lionel Andrades


THE ONUS IS WITH THE CDF. THE SSPX IS NOT IN SCHISM DOCTRINE-WISE