Saturday, September 24, 2016

Mundabor has no comment and cannot correct me

Mundabor has not addressed the points I mentioned on this blog post .

I had posted it to him as a comment.

There can be a Cushingite extra ecclesiam nulla salus or a  Feeneyite  extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).Cushingite EENS assumes that the baptism of desire etc, refer to explicit cases in the present times and so they are exceptions to Feeneyite EENS. For EENS  Feeneyite there are no known exceptions of the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance without the baptism of water.With the baptism of desire being an exception to EENS, Mundabor supports Cushingite EENS.But he still does not have a clue to it.
Here are four errors which he makes in his Cushingite interpretation of EENS.
1.Invisible cases are visible in the present times.
2.Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance) and Lumen Gentium 14 ( baptism of desire) refer to a visible case.So they are exceptions to EENS( Feneeyite).
3.Vatican Council II contradicts the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS since Lumen Gentium 16 etc are visible exceptions to the dogma.The dogma can only have exceptions in the present times. A case in the past cannot be an exception to the dogma EENS in the present times.Since someone who lived in the past is not a known reality in the present times, of a person saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
4.The dogma EENS has exceptions for all Cushingites. They are the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance, all without the baptism of water.

Through the dogma quoted by Mundabor the Church has decreed that all non Catholics with no known exceptions to us human beings, are oriented to Hell, unless they be incorporated as members of the Church. He has decreed it in the dogma EENS quoted by Mundabor above.
So it means all non Catholics in 2016 are on the way to Hell unless they formally convert into the Church; unless they have their names on the Parish Baptism Register.How can the baptism of desire etc be an explicit exception in 2016?

It is also logical and traditional for me to affirm EENS Feeneyite and Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church ( Feeneyite).
I reject EENS Cushingite and Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church ( Cushingite) as interpreted by Mundabor.There is no comment from Mundabor here.How can the both of us be correct ? And if I am wrong he has not pointed out the error to me.


Extra ecclesiam nulla salus, as quoted in the dogma on Mundabor's blog always meant all with no exceptions.It is liberal theology,Rahner's theology, which considered the baptism of desire etc as being explicit.So it was no more all needing to enter the Church formally.Rahner's new theology is used by Mundabor.He does not deny or affirm this.

The same error is there in the Baltimore Catechism (1891).It is assumed that the desire for the baptism of water of a hypothetical catechumen, who dies before receiving it , was an explicit case and so it was a known baptism like the baptism of water.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 also mixed up what is hypothetical as being objectively known.So it rejected the dogma EENS ( Feeneyite) by saying not every one needs to be incorporated into the Church.The Baltimore Catechism error was repeated in subsequent catechisms.Mundabor repeats the same error.The two popes do the same.He does not comment here.

According to Vatican Council II(AG 7, LG 14) the majority of people are on the way to Hell. Since they die without 'faith and baptism', which is needed for all, for salvation(to avoid Hell).Mundabor does not cite the Council here.Why not? Does he think there are exceptions mentioned in EENS? Yes! For him hypothetical cases are explicit exceptions.So AG 7 and LG 14 would contradict itself. CCC 1257 would also contradict itself( Every one needs the baptism of water but some do not).The fault in the interpretation lies with him since he is a Cushingite and not a Feeneyite.There is no comment from him here.

The SSPX assumes that Vatican Council II contradicts the old ecclesiology which supported an ecumenism of return and the need for all non Christians to formally enter the Church.Here we can see the influence of Rahner's theology, the New Theology, Cushingite theology which infers there are known exceptions to the dogma EENS, quoted by Mundabor above.So they are all contradicting the dogma EENS which Mundabor has quoted.No comment from him.

He is unable to say that according to Vatican Council II all Muslims are oriented to Hell without 'faith and baptism'.He is unable to say that there are no known exceptions in 2016.He cannot comment on this.
-Lionel Andrades

No comments: