Wednesday, August 19, 2015

BOB and BOD should not have been coupled with EENS since they are not explicit but abstract cases. Abstract cases cannot be exceptions or relevant to EENS in the present times

Immagine correlata
 Father Feeney had to believe EENS  AND BOB< BOD
 etc  as taught by the Church
He had to believe in EENS. He did.The
 magisterium at that time was denying 
the traditional rigorist interpretation of 
EENS. 'The Church' was contradicting
 'the Church' before 1949.

He had to believe in implicit desire and 
He accepted this.
He had to believe that implicit desire 
and martrydom were baptisms since
 they were explicit instead of implicit, 
they were concrete like the baptism 
of water instead of abstract and known
 to God.
 He correctly rejected this non 
traditional teaching.
This was not as 'the Church' taught 
all this before
 1885 and he was being asked to
 accept all this. 
This was heresy !

 ALONG with any other topic taught by the Church
 as necessary  for submission and obedience. 
Father Feeney denied that a person 
 could be saved by BOB , BOD etc. 

Yes he was correct since BOB 
and BOD are  hypothetical cases
they are not examples of explicit 
baptism.He agreed they could be
saved  along with the baptism of 
water.BOB and BOD should not
have been coupled with  EENS 
since they are not explicit but 
abstract  cases. Abstract cases
cannot be exceptions or relevant
 to EENS in the present times.

 The 'known' or 'Unknown' have zero relevance
 to accepting church  teaching.

The Church teaches there could
 be cases saved  with implicit desire
 or martyrdom.This is acceptable.
In itself it is fine.
However these cases can be considered relevant
 to the dogma, is it is being done commonly. This
 would mean that these cases are known in the 
present times to be relevant to the dogma.If they
 are zero cases in our reality they would be
 irrelevant to the dogma.
For me they are not relevant to the dogma since 
they are abstract cases, hypothetical for me.

It is important to make the known or unknown, 
abstract or concrete classification since upon this 
reasoning depends the hermeneutic or continuity 
or rupture in Vatican Council II.

If LG 16,UR 3, LG 8, NA2 etc are known  in the
 present times then Vatican Council II is a break 
with EENS, the Syllabus of Errors etc.There is a 
rupture with the past.
If they are not objective in the present times, if 
they are invisible for us then, Vatican Council II
 has a continuity with EENS, the Syllabus of Errors 
and the traditional ecclesiology of the Traditional
 Latin Mass. Vatican Council II then is in harmony 
with St. Alphonsus Ligouri, St.Thomas Aquinas,
 St. Anthony Marie Claret  and other saints 
and popes.

This is rampant with heresy. How dare you even suggest that after 1885 
the Ark Of Salvation was in error when clearly pre 1885 they held the 
same positions on BOB and BOD etc. 
No they did  not. Cantate Domino, Council
 of Florence  1441 in the text of extra
 ecclesiam nulla salus 
does not mention BOB,BOD or I.I.
None of the pre-1881 popes and saints who 
accepted BOD, BOB or I.I believed that these
 cases were concrete and not abstract, known
 instead of unknown,visible instead of invisible.
 So for them there was no connection between
 BOB, BOD and I.I with the dogma.
The connection was made in the Baltimore
 Catechism in 1881 when BOD and BOB were
 considered baptisms. This was then interpreted
 to mean that these cases were explicit and 
visible and these were formal baptisms like
 the baptism of water. So Catechisms now
 refer to three baptisms ( water,blood and desire).

So this was a big change in the teachings of the 
Church after 1885.
The Magisterium had changed the traditional 
teaching on the exclusive salvation in the
 Catholic Church, the only Ark of Salvation 
in which all need to be formal members, 
all need to have their names on the Parish
 Baptism Register to avoid Hell and go to

 AFTER approximately 1960 ( which coincides with the 
3rd secret of Fatima) everything changed in sound
 catechesis You continue to confuse Church teaching 
with Catechesis of Church teaching which has gone
 haywire eg: cardinal Cushing, Father Barron, Cardinal 
Dolan etc.....who did imply, suggest, teach that non 
Catholics can be saved.

You noticed it about the time of Vatican 
However the seeds were planted in
Baltimore in 1885.Perhaps the error
 was there even earlier but it was 
seen concretly in the Baltimore Catechism.


Lionel come on get real!!!!! We do NOT know AND the 

Church does NOT that St. Emerentiana is in Heaven
 without having been administered baptism by water. 
Good. We agree here.No one could 
know at that time or any time that she 
was in Heaven without the baptism of water.

BUT the Church does teach that She most certainly 
could be in Heaven WITHOUT baptism of water because
 God is NOT bound by His sacraments.

The Church, the magisterium teaches
 this ? Who was given a special dispensation 
or revelation to teach this? What was his
 or her name? Who was this person in the 
Church who had this Mystical  experience
 unknown to us and so he or she could 
reveal to all that St.Emerentiana is in 
Heaven as an exception to EENS?
-Lionel Andrades
Immagine correlata

No comments: