Wednesday, August 3, 2016

Nearly a year and sedevacantists will not answer if LG 16 refers to an invisible case : SSPX lay supporter suggests it is an invisible case but does not want to be quoted

It is nearly a year now. The sedevacantist bishop, priests and lay supporters will not answer if Vatican Council II,Lumen Gentium 16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance)can be intepreted as referring to explicit for us or invisible for us cases in 2015-2016.
Nor will they deny that they interpret LG 16 as being an explicit for us case in the present times i.e someone saved in invincible ignorance, without the baptism of water, who is personally known; whose name and surname is known.For the sedevacantists this person is a physical exception to all needing the baptism of water in the Catholic Church for salvation. This known person is an example of salvation outside the Church.
Over a year! -and they will not answer.
Bishop Donald Sanborn and Fr. Anthony Cekada have written articles on line on Feeneyism in which they assume that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ingnorance refer to known cases.They are objectively visible and so these cases  are relevant to EENS for them!

Meanwhile a prominent lay supporter of the Society of St.Pius X, who is a speaker and lecturer, has said that we cannot see the soul of a person. So he concedes the baptism of desire etc are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So personally he has answered me.He is saying LG 16 refers to an invisible case.However he does not want this to be disclosed in public. He does not want to be quoted.In public he will not say that LG 16 refers to an invisible case in 2016. In other words he is saying that we cannot see people in Heaven with the naked eye in 2016 but he does not want to be quoted saying this!
-Lionel Andrades

OCTOBER 5, 2015

Four months and the sedevacantists will not answer if LG 16 is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Does BOD and I.I refer to visible or invisible cases in 2015 where you live? is a difficult question for a sedevacantist priest

No comments: