Sedevacantist decides not to answer if LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc refer to explicit or implicit cases - 2

CONTINUED FROM

Sedevacantist decides not to answer if LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc refer to explicit or implicit cases. http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/11/sedevacantist-decides-not-to-answer-if.html

Introibo: No, Trent never taught that Protestant sects were a means of salvation.

Lionel:

Neither did Vatican Council II teach this. This is your interpretation of Unitatis Redintigratio 3, Vatican Council II.

 Remember that ALL of what is in catechism is protected from error by the Holy Ghost, not just some of it, otherwise you wouldn't know what was true from what was false.

Lionel: You don't accept the Catechism and the popes as a sedevantist ? So why are you mentioning this?

Also your rejection of the Catechism is because of the precise error I keep referring to. Consider LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 as being invisible for us and visible only for God and then Vatican Council II will not contradict EENS or Tradition. Then Vatican Council II will not be a basis for your sedevacantism.

____________________


 You deny this truth, so you believe catechisms can teach error. I demonstrated the is not Church teaching.
Lionel:
 I am referring to a precise error.Can LG 16 etc which is implicit be considered explicit? No. Yet this is the error in the interpretation of the Catechism and Vatican Council II. You will not answer this simple question: is LG 16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance) visible for invisible for you?
If you do not use this irrational  premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and the Catechism, then there is no error in either of the two.
_____________________________

You claim to believe ex cathedra teaching, yet deny the ex cathedra teaching of the First Vatican Council which affirms the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium.

Lionel:

The infallible teaching did not mention any exceptions. It did not mention BOD. Check the text of Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441.

Introibo: Cantate Domino (which you don't understand in your private interpretation) is talking about those OUTSIDE the Church, who don't wish to belong to Her. BOD and BOB only apply to those WHO WISH TO BE UNITED WITH THE TRUE CHURCH. Cantate Domino wasn't about BOD/BOB nor does it exclude them.

Lionel:

Cantate Domino does not mention BOD and BOB. Neither does it state that  there are any exceptions to all needing the baptism of water in the Catholic Church for salvation.On the contrary it emphasised that there are no exceptions.

For the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 BOD etc were exceptions. They are exceptions for Fr. Anthony Cekada. They were exceptions for Archbishop Lefebvre.So they were exceptions for Bishop Donald Sanborn and Bishop Bernard Fellay.

_____________________________

Below I will issue a challenge to Lionel Andrades.

CHALLENGE TO LIONEL ANDRADES:

You claim a heretic can be pope and catechisms promulgated by the pope can teach error. You further claim "I have cited specific references."

Therefore, give me a specific reference to ANY pre-Vatican II council, theologian, Canon law, or papal decree that teaches

(a) Catechisms promulgated by the pope and/or catechisms promulgated by conferences/councils of bishops with formal papal approval can teach error.

Lionel:

I have given you the actual error.I have given you specific references of the error in Church documents in previous blog post.

It is Catholic teaching that when the pope speaks ex cathedra he is infallible. The infallibility of the pope is a dogma of the Church. Similarly extra ecclesiam nulla salus is a dogma of the Church it is an infallible teaching.

When a church document,sedevacantist or traditionalist says BOD and BOB are exceptions to the dogma, he is implying that there are explicit cases in our reality.This is irratiional. It is also heretical. Since it contradicts the dogma on salvation and the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra.

__________________

 I'll be waiting for your response with specific references!
Lionel:

The Church does not teach there is error in general in a catechism and so no document has to claim it does.If there is an error it would be corrected practically.

-Lionel Andrades

Sedevacantist decides not to answer if LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc refer to explicit or implicit cases. http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/11/sedevacantist-decides-not-to-answer-if.html