Friday, July 28, 2017

We can have a unified interpretation of Vatican Council II when the baptism of desire error is corrected by the SSPX

We can have a unified interpretation of Vatican Council II when the baptism of desire error is corrected by the SSPX

JULY 28, 2017

We can have a unified interpretation of Vatican Council II when the baptism of desire error is corrected by the SSPX

Truth does not contradict itself. If BOD was a contradiction of EENS than either one of them has to be false. But why has the Church not condemned this teaching but rather has confirmed and defended it?


The baptism of desire (BOD) is invisible and implicit.It is not a contradiction of EENS. But the SSPX and you have made a mistake. So have the liberal theologians and Cardinal Ratzinger. They can correct this mistake. I write all this not for the sake of criticizing but so that the correction will made Then we can have a unified and irrational interpretation of VC 2.

BOP and BOD are not De Fidei but Sententia fidei proxima which means that these teachings are generally accepted as divine revelation but not defined as such by the Magisterium.
Why are you mentioning this to me I am not rejecting them. Secondly why are you mentioning them with reference to EENS you say that they are invisible and so are not exceptions to EENS.

Of course it has an connection to EENS. Even in the paragraph where Ott is writing about EENS he mentions BOD and the teachings of the Church Fathers.
For me BOD has no connection with EENS. This was the mistake in the Baltmore Catechism when they considered the case of the catechuman as being a baptism like the baptism of water and placed it in the baptism of water section of the Catechism. We cannot give any one the baptism of desire as we can the baptism of water. We can repeat the baptism of water but can do so with the baptism of desire. We know who has been given the baptism of water but only God knows who has the baptism of desire. It was also wrong for Vatican Council II to mention BOD, BOB and I.I. The long campaign of the Masons and others was successful. They got rid of the dogma EENS with this ruse.

Of course objectively speaking someone can be saved through BOP or BOD or II.
Yes for God. Objectively we cannot know of any such case, for example in 2017.


When we talk about a case of someone being saved in 2017 then we are talking about a person therefore its subjective.
Yes. So we agree that BOD etc cannot be objective exceptions to the dogma EENS.

A dogma is a truth fixed by God. It can not be contradicted. Under no circumstances.
Agreed. BOD etc cannot contradict it ever.

If God saves someone through an extraordinary grace like for example BOD, than he does not contradict a Dogma. God being almighty is not an absurdity and wether we know of it or not does not matter at all.
No he does not contradict the dogma EENS for us human beings. Since BOD etc would be a zero case in our reality.Even if someone was saved with BOD it would not be known to us.

What Pius XII. or the Saints or the Councils are saying is that there is a possibility of someone being saved through BOD without having received the sacramental baptism.
O.K but this has no connection to EENS, it is not an exception to EENS.

The dogma is not a contradiction of God. However visible for us BOD would be a contradiction of the dogma.
If there was a BOD case it would be followed by the baptism of water since in Heaven there are only Catholics.So it is not really an issue for us when we discuss EENS.However it has been made an issue.

"In the case of BOD it depends upon us." This is irrational. As if something being visible or known to us is changing reality.
This is the reality -that we cannot physically see BOD cases.While the New Theology suggests we can.
Since BOD, BOB and I.I are always invisible to us and we cannot know of any particular case saved as such, we can only refer to a possibility, a theoretical case. We can speculate.
But the reality is that we do not known of a particular case. We do not know the name and surname of any one saved as such.So we can only refer to a possibility.


Who cares if we know of such a particular case? It is has nothing to do wether the teachings of BOD, BOB or II are true.
It is important since it makes the present teachings on BOD etc by the SSPX and Fr. Hesse as being false. It means the magisterium has made a mistake and the traditionalists did not know about it.


Either someone gets saved by BOD or not. Wether he is invisible, visible, blue, green, red, brown does not matter at all.
But where is the some one who gets saved with BOD etc.May be there was no case over the last century. How would we know?
The dogma is the teaching of the Holy Spirit . It is de fide.It is an infallible teaching.BOD has not been defined by the Church.

-Lionel Andrades

No comments: