Monday, January 18, 2016

Archbishop Lefebvre did not see the same wrong reasoning, as the inference in the Letter(1949) used in Vatican Council II.The SSPX has still not noticed this !!!

I am surprised that after knowing me all this time that you would even speculate that I would speculate on what God will or will not do regarding any person's particular judgment. I have never inferred, implied or insinuated that I could or would know what God does.
For you there exists a baptism of desire. It excludes the baptism of water.Here is the problem.You say this is the Church teaching. This is the problem.

 I trust in Him without any preconceived limitations or qualifications. I am relieved that you say "God can do what He wishes and has no limitations" I pray that you mean that because it is this phrase that you have contradicted in the past when you assume, presume and declare that the possibility of salvation by baptism of Desire  would be followed by baptism by water. 
Theoretically God can do what He wants. 
Practically, all need to formally enter the Church since this is what God wants.

St. Bonaventure has stated it correctly and neither he, I or you could possibly know if God baptized the POSSIBLE person who MAY have died in a state of Baptism by Desire with water or NOT.
He only refers to a theological speculation.Fine.It is a hypothetical case without the irrational inference for me. I do not infer that this is an explicit case for him or me.

 Your constant attack on Saints and Popes over the past centuries places you in peril for your own salvation. 
I am not attacking the teachings of St. Bonaventure for instance. All I am saying is that you should not cite him and baptism of desire with reference to EENS or an as exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). This is what the liberal theologians have done and now the error has become magisterial and you accept it.You say this is the teaching of the Church.

 Your constant badgering of those who we do "know' are in heaven as they are proclaimed Saints puts you in direct opposition with those who ARE KNOWN to be with God and your constant attacks on them on not understanding EENS. 
When the contemporary magisterium says the baptism of desire is an exception, then its a knee jerk reaction from me. I say there are no known cases of BOD in the present times and neither were there any in the past.Sp where are the exceptions?

 You can not assume that someone believes that someone is in Heaven without baptism by water unless they use those very words. You assume false catechesis without proof. 
I believe people are in Heaven only  with the baptism of water because this is the de fide teaching of the Church before theologians discovered that BOD was an exception to the dogma EENS. They probably called up Vatican Council II only to implement this error from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. The aim was to get rid of the dogma, assume hypothetical cases are defacto known.The innovation would produce non traditional results.

You say that this 'they' infer it. Archbishop Levebre stood against the world in proclaiming truth.  BOB, BOD and Invincible Ignorance are Church teaching on those whose condition of sanctity are found pleasing to God and if so are in Heaven in the manner that God pleases not subject to your speculation and are COMPLETELY UNKNOWN TO US as to God's discernment. 
He accepted the inference of the Lettter of the Holy Office 1949. He also did not see thesame wrong reasoning, as the inference in the Letter(1949) used in Vatican Council II. The Council takes hypothetical cases and places them near orthodox passages which support EENS.
Then the secular media and the VaticanCuria interpret them as being explicit.They become exceptions to EENS. The SSPX has still not noticed this !!!

And yes all save a remnant in the Church now belief that other faiths are a path to salvation, or no faith at all for that matter and BOB,BOD and Inv. Ignorance are paths that are an option for Salvation in which ALLof these are heretical teaching. Remember it IS Church teaching that NO ONE can EVER belong to the Soul of the Church who refuses to belong to the BODY of the Church.
'NO ONE can EVER belong to the Soul of the Church who refuses to belong to the BODY of the Church.'These are meaningless words from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. Like you so many have fallen for this nonsense.

Do you know any one who belongs to the soul and not the body? Is it a hypothetical case for you? What had this line have to do with the Feeneyite version of the dogma EENS ? Nothing? So why was it mentioned? Since it was presumed that these cases are known! Hypothetical cases are known! This is the reasoning in Vatican Council II (UR 3, NA 2, LG 8, LG 16 etc)
-Lionel Andrades

No comments: