Tuesday, July 19, 2016

Il Miracolo Eucharistico a Garabandal il 18 Luglio 1962 come prova di autentica


https://gloria.tv/video/kdQaWb7RyPGQ3CJ3zWTqTpVJt

On this point depends the ecclesiology at Holy Mass, the two different faiths of Catholics, the two interpretations of Vatican Council II,the sedevacantism of the sedevacantists and the canonical status of the SSPX

Have you ever seen a baptized person in heaven?  If not, does that mean it is "not part of your reality"?  You are limiting reality to experiential knowledge obtain via the senses.  This is not the Catholic way to view reality.  You have never visibly seen purgatory, heaven, hell, or God, for that matter, but that does not mean these are not part of reality.
Lionel:
The issue is : is there salvation outside the Church, do we know of an Anonymous Christian saved outside the Church, are there exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS)? Did the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 state that Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Centre were wrong and not every one needed to enter the Church? Did the Letter (1949) consider the baptism of desire and blood as excluding the baptism of water and being an exception to the Feeneyite/SBC understanding of EENS?
This is the issue.Since on this point depends the ecclesiology at Mass.Now there are two faiths at Holy Mass.There are two interpretations of Vatican Council II. Upon this point depends the sedevacantism of the sedevacantists who reject Vatican Council and on this point depends the canonical status of the SSPX.

Have you ever seen a baptized person in heaven? 
Lionel: No I have not.
__________________________

 If not, does that mean it is "not part of your reality"? 
Lionel: It is not part of my physical reality in the sense that I can see the physical baptism of water but physically I cannot see the person saved in Heaven.
_________________________

 You are limiting reality to experiential knowledge obtain via the senses. 
Lionel:For there to be an exception to the dogma EENS, for someone to be saved without entering the Church, he would have to be known and physically visible. Otherwise how can he be an exception ?. He would have to be empirically seen. He cannot be invisible to the senses to be postulated as a potential or actual exception to the dogmatic teaching on exclusive salvation in the Church.
I have to limit it to a human being. I cannot extend the possibility to fairies or ghosts and then postulate a new theology based upon these ghosts being known exceptions to all humans needing to enter the Church, with faith and baptism, to avoid Hell.
__________________________


 This is not the Catholic way to view reality. 
Lionel:
The present, contemporary Catholic way to view reality is to assume there are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), so the inference is that there are known people, for them to be exceptions.Yet we know that these' known people' would be in Heaven if they are saved.How can people in Heaven be exceptions on earth? This is how the SSPX, sedevacantists and Vatican Curia view reality.
___________________________

 You have never visibly seen purgatory, heaven, hell, or God, for that matter, but that does not mean these are not part of reality.
Lionel: 
They are part of my reality in faith. They are not the reality of others living on earth. They are not the reality of Hindus or Buddhists.I believe they exist.
 I cannot believe that there were 20 cases of the baptism of desire this year. I cannot believe that someone on earth saw St. Emerentiana in Heaven without the baptism of water.I cannot believe that St. Emerentiana is an exception in 2016 to all needing to enter the Church. This would be irrational.How can someone from the past be a living exception to EENS in the present times(2016).
 It is now being said through the new theology,based on this error ( CCC 1257) that every one needs the baptism of water for salvation but some people do not .This contradicts the Principle of Non Contradiction.
Similarly the first part of the Letter (1940) affirms the traditional dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the second part of the Letter contradicts the first part with exceptions.
Is it Catholic philosophy to say all need the baptism of water for salvation but all do not need the baptism of water for salvation since God is not limited to the Sacraments.(CCC 1257).Was it part of cardinals Ratzinger and Schonborn's reality to know of someone who was saved without the baptism of water, since God is not limited to the Sacraments?

'God is not limited to the Sacraments' is hypothetical . The baptism of water is physical, visible and objective.How could the Catechism of the Catholic Church confuse what is  invisible with what is visible. Why did it not make the objective-subjective, explicit-implicit, practical-hypothetical, distinction? It did not - since the cardinals assumed that what is implicit is explicit, what is hypothetical is a practical exception to EENS. This was their fantasy reality.It's not Catholic.
-Lionel Andrades

Archbishop Thomas E. Gullickson, Fr.S.Visintin osb, John Martignoni and Catholic priests in Rome say that the baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.They are familiar with the basic laws of nature .Humans can only see visible things

When there is a dialogue we take it for granted that the understanding of physical reality is the same for the two persons in dialogue.If one of the persons in dialogue does not believe in the laws of nature and the other person does, there will be confusion. They will not be able to agree on basic things.
How I am to conduct a dialogue with a Catholic who indicates that we humans can see or know of people now in Heaven, saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. People who did not receive the physical action of the baptism of water.This is not part of my reality. I cannot physically see such persons.
So in a discussion with another Catholic I assume that the baptism of desire, or being saved in some form without the baptism of water, is not part of my reality.I also assume that the physical conditions of not being able to see a baptism of desire case in 2016 also apply to other human beings.This is our common reality.May be a saint or an extraordinary person has this gift or grace to see people in Heaven without the baptism of water, but in general this is not the case with most people.
I am unable to begin a dialogue with a lay supporter of the SSPX in the USA since our understanding of physical reality, the laws of nature are different.
We both first have to find common ground which indicates that we both are on earth with the same physical perspective of the laws of nature.
In communication with his layman via e-mails, I  explained that Archbishop Thomas E. Gullickson,  Dean of Theology Fr.S.Visintin osb, John Martignoni and many Catholic diocesan priests in Rome say that the baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It cannot be an exception.Obviously they are familiar with the basic laws of nature and that we humans can only see visible things.So it is not a personal view of mine that there cannot be any known exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in 2016. I base my view upon the laws of nature.-Lionel Andrades

July 19, 2016
You do not have any problem with the statements of Archbishop Gullickson, Fr. S.Visintin OSB, John Martignoni and the Brazilian priest I quoted? They say BOD is not an exception to EENS, it is invisible
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/07/you-do-not-have-any-problem-with.html
 

You do not have any problem with the statements of Archbishop Gullickson, Fr. S.Visintin OSB, John Martignoni and the Brazilian priest I quoted? They say BOD is not an exception to EENS, it is invisible

Lionel, I addressed your errors already.
Lionel:
What is the error ? Please be precise.
______________________

You have created a straw man to knock down and then claim victory.

Lionel:
What is the straw man please be specific.
______________________

It doesnt matter that cases of BOD are invisible,which we have always granted.

Lionel:
So you acknowledge that cases of BOD are invisible in 2016 and in the past. They do not exist in our reality?
If you acknolwedge this then we can begin a dialogue.
You do not have any problem with the statements of Archishop Gullickson, Fr. S.Visintin OSB, John Martignoni and the Brazilian priest I quoted? They say BOD is not an exception to EENS, it is invisible.
Invisible cases cannot be exceptions to all needing to enter the Church in 2016 for salvation.

____________________________


The Church has the authority to declare that BOD joins one to the Church for salvation, which she has.

Lionel:
O.K. The contemporarty magisterium has the authority to contradict the past magisterium.
____________________________


And invisible cases also dont mean they are an exception to EENS.

Lionel:
Are there exceptions or are there no exceptions?
___________________________

They are not.

Lionel:
So BOD is not an exception for you.
However you and the SSPX and the contemporary 'Church' accept the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which indicates Fr.Leonard Feeney was wrong since BOD etc are exceptions to EENS?
So when you attend Mass, LG 16 ( invincible ignorance) is an exception to EENS. So Vatican Council II contradicts EENS for you? This is your ecclesiology at Holy Mass. This is your faith.
My faith at Mass is different.Ecclesiology is different. It is traditional, irrespective of the Rite.

___________________________

Because you cannot refute the foregoing, your cause has come to an end.

Lionel:
What is my cause? I am affirming the dogma EENS ,with no
visible exceptions,
no known exceptions in 2016.I am affirming the baptism of desire which will include the baptism of water, since this is the dogmatic teaching and since it is invisible it does not contradict EENS. I affirm the Nicene Creed and the Athanasius Creed, I affirm the Catechism(1995) in which I interpret hypothetical cases as just being hypothetical.
So I support my view with magisterial documents interpreted rationally.
You ,the SSPX and the sedevacantists cannot say the same. You can get away with heresy and irrationality since you are supported by the present liberal magisterium, which opposes the pre Council of Trent magisterium which did not state that BOD cases are explicit in our reality.
Agreed?
-Lionel Andrades