I have to ask this question, since like the Left, the sedevacantists infer that there are explicit cases in 2015 saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. These persons they infer are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
They infer this, when like the Holy Office (CDF) 1949, they assume that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church.If they are exceptions they would have to be explicit and visible in the flesh.So they conclude that there are known exceptions to the dogma and they refer to persons saved in invincible ignorance and with the baptism of water(LG 16) and are unaware of the irrational reasoning they are using.They will keep silent and refuse to answer the question.
Since they already assume that LG 16 is explicit and since they are not aware of this, I have to begin the discussion by asking them if LG 16 is explicit.
They will not answer.
This is a rational question and the priests will not answer.
Can you see people, non Catholics in 2015, who are saved outside the Church with the baptism of water and Catholic Faith? Yes or No? It's no for me. Since I cannot see or know any such case here where I live.
Can you see or know non Catholics now in Heaven in 2015 saved in inculpable ignorance(LG 16) ? The answer is no for me.
In my discussions with the sedevacantist blog owner at Ad Altare Dei some four months back, initially he agreed that LG 16 is not explicit ( this is common sense!) but then he was not sure and changed his mind!! At first he said that we cannot see the dead-saved in Heaven and then he changed his mind!!
He got confused when I asked him if he was holding the Feeneyite position.He said that there were no exceptions to the dogma EENS and LG 16 was not explicit , but he was not supporting Feeneyism!
Yes, this is what Fr. Leonard Feeney was saying. He was saying there could not be any known exception to the dogma EENS.There could not be any known case of someone being saved outside the Church.The baptism of desire(BOD) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) had nothing to do with the dogma.
Since 1949 the Magisterium says there are known exceptions to the dogma EENs and so do the sedevacantists Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Anthony Cekada.They criticize Feeneyism . So the blogger at Ad Altare Dei could not offend them, even though it made sense to him, his position would be rational if he supported Feeneyism.He understood there were no exceptions to the dogma, this was rational but he was not going to support Fr. Leonard Feeney.
If his reason tells him that there could not be any exceptions to the dogma, then to say LG 16 is an exception, would be to change the meaning of the dogma. This was heresy and liberalism. This 'liberalism is a sin'( have you read the book with this title?).I recommend it.
It would be the Magisterium which had made a mistake. The Magisterium was in heresy if LG 16 is not an exception to the dogma.
Worse still it would mean this mistake was being supported by the sedevacantists bishops, priests and seminarians.
The sedevacantists would have been supporting the heresy all these years and not knowing about it.
So the sedevacantists are telling each other on Twitter not to answer my question. Some of the priests too have blocked any discussion.Years have passed and there is no comment in public from Fr. Cekada or Bishop Sanborn.
Where is the basis in Vatican Council II for their sedevacantism if there are no exceptions, to the old ecclesiology.They will not comment. They have gone into hiding.'Please don't ask me any questions and send me any e-mails' is the response of the bishop and the priests.They know the conclusion of this discussion would be embarassing.
It is only because they assume that LG 16 is explicit does LG 16 contradict the old ecclesiology. The fault is with them and not Vatican Council II.So I ask them is LG 16 as exception to the dogma hoping to begin a discussion.
They are similar to the priests and bishops in the main line churches here in Rome who do not want to answer if LG 16 is an exception to EENS.They know the answer! It would put them at odds with the pope and the magisterium. They would have to say that the Magisterium is in heresy.So they do not say anything.
-Lionel Andrades
Does BOD and I.I refer to visible or invisible cases in 2015 where you live? is a difficult question for a sedevacantist priest
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/10/does-bod-and-ii-refer-to-visible-or.html
Posts
3 comments:
The name is Introibo Ad Altare Dei. You can't even get the name right. I never "changed my mind." You and objective reality spend very little time together. Here's what I said and can be read on my blog: introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com
1. We can't see the dead. Period. You're a bad parody of the movie "The Sixth Sense"--"I DON'T see dead people!" Well good for you! If we can't see the dead in Heaven, we can't see them in ANY state. By the same logic, there are no baptized Catholics in Heaven because we don't see them. Stupid. We know some who are in Heaven when the Church declares them to be such. The Church has declared (infallible) saints in Heaven by BOB.
2. BOB and BOD are not exceptions to EENS. They are exceptions to BOW.
3. Lumen Gentium claims"Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience" I don't see any mention of Batism here, do you? Just like you can't see the dead.
4. The heretical part is where LG claims the Church of Christ is not identical to the RC Church, but merely "subsists" in it, as if the two were distinct. That is heresy. The RCC and the Church of Christ are identical. It subsists no where else.
--Introibo
The name is Introibo Ad Altare Dei. You can't even get the name right. I never "changed my mind." You and objective reality spend very little time together. Here's what I said and can be read on my blog: introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com
Lionel:
Your name is not that,as a Catholic you hide your name.
You are also forgetting that you initially called for a discussion and then when things were getting too hot you stopped posting my comments and deleted the conversation on Twitter.
________________________
1. We can't see the dead. Period.
Lionel:
Yes that makes sense. So since we cannot see or know the dead saved in BOD,BOB or I.I and allegedly without the baptism of water,these cases are not relevant or exceptions to the Feeneyite version of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). Agreed? This is Feeneyism.You accept this? Are you breaking ranks with Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Cekada?
________________________
You're a bad parody of the movie "The Sixth Sense"--"I DON'T see dead people!" Well good for you! If we can't see the dead in Heaven, we can't see them in ANY state.
Lionel:
Correction. For you Bishop Sanborn, Fr. Anthony Cekada, Fr. Deposito and the other priests and seminarians at the sedevacantist seminary in Florida, there are exceptions to the dogma EENS. BOD, BOB amd I.I are exceptions. It is there on line.
So if there are exceptions then the inference is that you can see or know these exceptions for them to be exceptions.
But these cases are in Heaven ? How can they be relevant to the dogma in 2015?
So it is because you infer that you can see these persons in Heaven, that I have to keep asking you about it again and again.
_________________________
By the same logic, there are no baptized Catholics in Heaven because we don't see them.
Lionel:
I have not said that baptised Catholics are an exception to the dogma so why do you mention it?
____________________
Stupid. We know some who are in Heaven when the Church declares them to be such. The Church has declared (infallible) saints in Heaven by BOB.
Lionel.
The Church has not said infallibly that someone is in Heaven without the baptism of water.This is your personal inference.
Also who on earth, in the Church, in the past could say with confidence that someone is in Heaven without the baptism of water? How would they physically know?
Again another one of your seeing people in Heaven inferences?
No pope, cardinal or bishop can suggest that they personally know someone who is in Heaven without the baptism of water.Since humanly this is not possible. We cannot 'see into' Heaven.
________________________________
2. BOB and BOD are not exceptions to EENS. They are exceptions to BOW.
Lionel:
The baptism of desire and baptism of blood are not exceptions to EENS ? This is what Fr. Leonard Feeney said.There is not known salvation outside the Church.
BOD is not relevant to EENS.So why does Fr. Anthony Cekada say the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary religious, at the St. Benedict Centers USA, are in mortal sin for not accepting BOD with reference to EENS.
The SBC say they accept BOD and it will be followed with the baptism of water.These are hypothetical cases.
So why does the professor at the sedevacantist seminary make this claim that they are in in mortal sin? Is he not wrong?
______________
So LG 16 is also not an exception to EENS for you?
__________________________
3. Lumen Gentium claims"Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience" I don't see any mention of Batism here, do you? Just like you can't see the dead.
Lionel.
So those who are in inculpable ignorance or with a good coscience and who are saved are known or unknown to you personally? Are they visible or invisible for you personally?
And if they are invisible for you as these cases are invisible for me, is LG 16 an exception to EENS?
____________________
4. The heretical part is where LG claims the Church of Christ is not identical to the RC Church, but merely "subsists" in it, as if the two were distinct. That is heresy. The RCC and the Church of Christ are identical. It subsists no where else.
Lionel.
The subsist it confusion is based on B being an exception to A
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/07/subsist-it-confusion-based-on-b-is.html
'Subsistit it'(LG 8) is not a VISIBLE exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/subsistit-itlg-8-is-not-visible.html
CARDINAL DESIGNATE FR. KARL BECKER SAYS THE CHURCH OF CHRIST IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ONLY
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/02/cardinal-designate-fr-karl-becker-says.html
Post a Comment