Tuesday, July 5, 2016

There is no reason to go into sedevacantism based on Vatican Council II( Cushingite).

Outside The Church There Is No Salvation And Refuting Baptism Of Desire

The most comprehensive book, facts, arguments and articles on the Catholic Church’s dogmatic teaching Outside the Church There is No Salvation and the baptism of desire controversy.

It is not the most comprehensive book  since over the last six years or so it has ignored my arguments on the baptism of desire, extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II.
The sedevacantist Peter and Michael Dimond are Cushingites.They interpret the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance as referring to objective cases, seen in the flesh people.Then they reject the baptism of desire etc.Since they consider it an exception to the dogma EENS and for them EENS can have no exceptions.
Similarly they have gone into sedevacantism since they assume Vatican Council II( Cushingite) contradicts the dogma EENS.So they reject Vatican Council and affirm EENS and consider the popes anti-popes for accepting Vatican Council II( Cushingite). They are not aware of a Vatican Council II( Feneeyite) which is in harmony with their EENS( Feneeyite).
Their writings have no explicit and implicit concept.There is no objective and subjective baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance.For them invisible cases are always visible.

By Bro. Peter Dimond

This is the most comprehensive book that has been written on this dogma. 
No it is not the most comprehensive book. Since it excludes the argument on hypothetical cases not being explicit for us and so they cannot be practical exceptions to the dogma EENS.
It omits the argument on Vatican Council II ( LG 16) being explicit or implicit. So there can be two conclusions, two interpretations of Vatican Council II.
It omits the argument on the baptism of desire being interpreted as either being explicit or implicit.They cannot even conceive of such a concept.
It does not mention that the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made an objective mistake. The second part contradicts the first part, since in the second part of the Letter, hypothetical cases are assumed to be explicit and non-hypothetical.
There is no so much missing in their book.
This book answers all of the major objections on the baptism and salvation issue.
Lionel: Even after the book was written and with so many blog posts sent to them,  Peter and Michael Dimond refuse to address the arguments mentioned by me.They pull down my comments and do not discuss them on their website.Since the comments are out of their Cushingite reality, it would make no sense to them, since their premises are different.
 It contains the most important papal pronouncements on this issue, a whole history of the “baptism of desire” controversy, 
Lionel:It is part of the baptism of desire controversy since it interprets the popes and saints as referring to an explicit -for-us baptism of desire.
many detailed sections covering all angles of the “invincible ignorance” objection,
Lionel: Similarly the book considers 'invincible ignorance' as being explicit and so it is rejected. The book does not mention that 'invinicble ignorance' can be considered hypothetical for us humans  and known only to God.These theoretical cases are unknown for us.So it is not an issue with reference to EENS.
 a section responding to every objection you’ve probably heard of on this topic and many that you haven’t. 
Lionel: There is no basis for Peter and Michael Dimond's sedevacantism based on Vatican Council II.
Instead they should interpret Vatican Council II with LG 16 etc referring to invisible and hypothetical cases. Then LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc will not contradict their present interpretation of EENs.This means that they would have to announce  that they were wrong about Vatican Council II, wrong to infer that BOD,BOB and I.I referred to known people saved outside the Church and wrong to assume the Catechisms, Mystici Corporis etc contradict Feeneyite EENS.
The sedevacantists instead could tell Pope Francis and the CDF that they affrirm Vatican Council II in agreement with the old ecclesiology, the old salvation theology.There is no conflict between Vatican Council II and the 'strict interpretation' of the dogma EENS.They could ask the Vatican Curia to do the same.
So there is no reason to go into sedevacantism based on Vatican Council II( Cushingite).
This is the first and only book to have covered all of the dogmatic definitions on this topic about salvation from the ecumenical councils (including the little-known ones from the Council of Vienne and the Fifth Lateran Council – see section 1). Look through the Table of Contents if you are looking for a particular issue or objection. But we strongly recommend that people obtain this book from us for only $4.00 so that they can have all the quotations in book form.
Lionel:The book is inadequate and outdated on the issue of EENS. A lot of water has flown under the bridge since they wrote it.They are unable to comment upon their making an objective error in the interpretation of Vatican Council II,the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance.Their entire theological house of cards, like that of the liberals, will come down.
They have been accusing Catholics of being in heresy without being aware of the Feeneyite-Cushingite distinction.Lionel  Andrades


AUGUST 13, 2014

Peter Dimond's new article on baptism of desire ignores two points I have asked


Dialogue with the MHFM comes to a stop again


AUGUST 10, 2014

Dialogue with the MHFM continued after a pause-2


AUGUST 9, 2014

Dialogue with the MHFM continued after a pausehttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/08/dialogue-with-mhfm-continued-after-pause.html

 MAY 17, 2014

Dialogue with the MHFM 2


MAY 15, 2014
Explicit Baptism of desire is to be rejected. Implicit BOD known only to God has been mentioned by the saints

No comments: