Who are you? You are a liar.
The truth is not in you. If you post things about our correspondence, perhaps you should mention that we challenged you to a debate and you refused.
Lionel:
I do not use the telephone system. It's quite a few years now as such.It is a help spiritually.
I have numerous times posted reports on my blog about a fundamental error in your interpretation of magisterial texts including Vatican Council II. They are specific errors. You have never addressed them.Perhaps you both still do not understand what I am saying.
On May 15, 2014 I sent you a post Explicit Baptism of desire is to be rejected. Implicit BOD known only to God has been mentioned by the saints
You write on your website:
It’s that in addition to the dogmatic arguments (and the key question) which destroy ‘baptism of desire’, it’s important not to forget about the teaching of papal encyclicals to the entire Church in the modern period.They are thoroughly and completely on our side.(Lionel: They do not claim that the baptism of desire is visible to us and so is relevant or an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus)
I repeat: They do not claim that the baptism of desire is visible to us and so is relevant or an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
I repeat: They do not claim that the baptism of desire is visible to us and so is relevant or an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
I repeat: They do not claim that the baptism of desire is visible to us and so is relevant or an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
When will you address this point ? Do you understand what I am saying Peter and Michael ? I am not referring to theology.l am not referring to Catholic doctrine primarily.l am saying how can you claim to see the deceased now in Heaven and then assume these cases are explicit exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( and so you reject the baptism of desire).
Where is the Church document which states that the baptism of desire is explicit for us human beings?
Where is the Church document which states that the baptism of desire is objectively visible and so is an exception to the traditional teaching on salvation ?
Why cannot we dialogue on just this one point ?
MHFM:
Also, you don’t affirm Tradition. You reject Tradition and Catholic dogma. You don’t see a contradiction between Vatican II and Catholic teaching because you are a complete liar.
Lionel:
We can assume there is an explicit for us, visible in the flesh baptism of desire or we can assume BOD is invisible for us.
We can assume that invincible ignorance (LG 16) and being saved with 'a ray of the Truth' (NA 2) refer to cases visible to us in 2014 or we can assume that they are visible only to God.
We can infer that Vatican Council II (LG 16,NA 2 etc) contradicts extra ecclesiam nulla salus or we can reason that since the deceased-saved are not visible to us, Vatican Council II (LG 16,NA 2 etc) does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
If I infer that the deceased-saved (NA 2 etc) are visible on earth then Vatican Council II CONTRADICTS Church teaching.If I infer that the deceased-saved are not invisible to us and so are not explicit exceptions to any thing, then Vatican Council II DOES NOT CONTRADICT Church teaching.
I have been repeating the above point numerous times in my posts to you.There is always an alternative. There is a rational and and irrational interpretation. One is with a an inference and the other is without it.
MHFM
To give just one example of how Vatican II contradicts Catholic dogma: Vatican II teaches that Protestants and schismatics who dissent from the rule of Catholic faith are in the Body of Christ. The Catholic Church teaches the opposite. That’s a heresy in Vatican II, as the first video below proves.
Lionel:
Please be specific.
If you are referring to Unitatitis Redintigratio 3 being saved in 'imperfect communion with the Church' then UR 3 contradicts extra ecclesiam nulla salus if these cases are explicit for us, objectively visible, seen on earth and so they become exceptions.Yes then they contradict the traditional teaching.If these cases of deceased saved in imperfect communion with the Church are invisible for you on earth then they do not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus.They are not exceptions.
For me these cases are invisible. I cannot name any such case in 2014. So they are not exceptions to the traditional teaching which says all need faith and baptism(AG 7) for salvation.
MHFM
Here are a few other videos that cover heresies in Vatican II:
Lionel:
In the videos above you have made the error of assuming that the deceased-saved are visible in the flesh on earth and so are exceptions to Tradition.It is an objective error.It is a also a fundamental mistake in your apologetics.
-Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment