No comment from Bishop Donald Sanborn over some two years : questions still not being answered . It is with heresy that they offer the Tridentine Rite Mass. They interpret Vatican Council II in schism with the past popes

OCTOBER 9, 2015

Bp. Sanborn and Fr. Cekada have been informed. They are not in ignorance.Why must they make the same error as Archbishop Lefebvre and Cardinal Ratzinger?

Comments from Sedevacantist community in Florida still remaing in hiding like diocesan priests in Rome and do not answer questions on the Faithhttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/10/sedevacantist-community-in-florida.html

Introibo Ad Altare Dei said...

Here are your points answered:

1. The entire issue has nothing to do with EENS and everything to do with HOW membership in the Church is obtained. You can receive BOW(Baptism of Water) OR BOB(Baptism of Blood without BOW) OR BOD(Baptism of Desire without BOW). The Feeneyites will admit ONLY BOW (or they fancy BOW must follow BOB or BOD; which is not true because BOB and BOD are sufficient in and of themselves). BOB and BOD have been taught by the Church since the beginning. To deny them as sufficient for Church membership is a mortal sin against the Faith. It is heresy. See http://www.romancatholicism.org/bod-quotes.html

2. You are obsess with "exceptions." You don't understand the problem which is why you can't comprehend the answer. To deny BOD as sufficient in and of itself is heretical. If someone said hypothetically, "Christ could commit sin" it is not an exception to his sinlessness since we can't see Him commit sin nor do we know of any sin He committed. We can't see Him in Heaven.WRONG! It is heresy because it says IT IS POSSIBLE. The hypothesis alone is enough to bring the censure of heresy. Christ, Who is God, cannot commit sin, and whether there are actual cases or not, does not matter. Likewise, to deny the efficacy of BOD without BOW is heresy even if only hypothetical. It doesn't matter that we can't see the dead, etc. The hypothesis alone is enough to be guilty of heresy.

3. They are in mortal sin. He is not wrong. LG 16 is an heretical hypothesis as explained above.

October 8, 2015 at 1:39 PM

 

Here are your points answered:

1. The entire issue has nothing to do with EENS and everything to do with HOW membership in the Church is obtained. You can receive BOW OR BOB (without BOW) OR BOD (without BOW).
Lionel:
So are you saying that BOD (with or without the baptism of water) is invisible for us and so is not an exception to the dogma EENS? Is Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Cekada actually saying this ? ( March 2018.No he is still not saying this. It is obvious but they cannot say it. Since then their entire drama has to end).
__________________

The Feeneyites will admit ONLY BOW (or they fancy BOW must follow BOB or BOD; which is not true because BOB and BOD are sufficient in and of themselves).
Lionel:
It is a dogma of the church that all need the baptism of water for salvation.
It is not a dogma of the Church that BOD is sufficient and must exclude the baptism of water.
Anyway these cases are hypothetical.You and Bishop Sanborn do not know of any specific case. So how can you assume in principle that there are persons saved as such or going to be saved as such when you do not know and cannot know of any specific case?. How can you make a theoretical rule when no one in the history of the Church could know of any case? (March 2018: No comment from Bishop Sanborn or his community on this point).
__________________

BOB and BOD have been taught by the Church since the beginning.
Lionel:

I repeat BOB and BOD is not an issue. But at issue is whether these cases are invisible or visible. You provided a whole list of BOD cases and I mentioned that not a single one states that they are explicit and so an exception to the dogma.So Fr.Cekada cannot cite them as a reference. They are not exceptions or relevant to the Feeeneyite version of EENS.
Not a single of the BOD references cited, claim that BOD is explicit,objective and visible to us humans. None . Yet this is what is implied by Fr. Cekada in his article.He has done all his research on this subject assuming BOD is explicit. Then he condemns the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary for not accepting explicit BOD as an exception to the dogma. He even ludicrously calls it a mortal sin.
So I have to keep asking you again and again is BOD explicit or implicit, visible or invisible and not one of you from the community at Florida will respond.
You still have not answered is LG 16 explicit or implicit ? (March 2018. About three years have passed and still no one will answer this question. )
______________________________________

To deny them as sufficient for Church membership is a mortal sin against the Faith. It is heresy.
Lionel:
BOD and BOB does not have to be denied since for me they are always invisible and theoretical they are not exceptions to the dogma EENS. They are irrelevant to the dogma.So they are not being denied.
However it is heresy to say that they are explicit and then imply that they are exceptions to EENS and to the Nicene Creed which says I believe in one baptism for the forgivessness of sin and not three known baptisms.(March 2018.Some three years have passed and no one has responded. It is with heresy that they offer the Tridentine Rite Mass. They interpret Vatican Council II in schism with the past popes.)
_______________________

See http://www.romancatholicism.org/bod-quotes.html

2. You are obsess with "exceptions."
Lionel: 
When Fr. Cekada says the community of Fr. Leonard Feeney must accept BOD without the baptism of water he is referring to an exception.So I have to respond.
He implies that there is a known case of someone saved with the baptism of desire in the present times ( 2015). It would have to be in the present times to be relevent to EENS. Then he assumes that this 'explicit' case is there in Heaven without the baptism of water. So he wants the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary to accept this fantasy. His reasoning is based on an irrational premise and inference.
You support all this ! (March 2018. This is still there theology with exceptions to EENS.)
__________________________

You don't understand the problem which is why you can't comprehend the answer. To deny BOD as sufficient in and of itself is heretical.
Lionel:
When you refer to BOD specify if it is expliict BOD or implicit BOD to which you refer.
To suggest BOD is explicit is nonsense. Common sense tells us BOD cases are in Heaven and so they cannot be explicit on earth.
Numerous times I have mentioned this point but you have not answered . This is a common sense question.Can you see the dead-saved now in Heaven with BOD? Is LG 16 an exception to EENS? (March 2018: Three years and they still teach error at the sedevacantist seminary).
________________

If someone said hypothetically, "Christ could commit sin" it is not an exception to his sinlessness since we can't see Him commit sin nor do we know of any sin He committed. We can't see Him in Heaven.WRONG! It is heresy because it says IT IS POSSIBLE. The hypothesis alone is enough to bring the censure of heresy. Christ, Who is God, cannot commit sin, and whether there are actual cases or not, does not matter. 
Lionel:
No one is making this claim
However Fr. Cekada has written that the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary are in mortal sin, since they do not accept visible in the flesh for us BOD. Does this make sense ? 
What if the Sisters said that they accept implicit for us and explicit for God only BOD. What would be his reaction? Would he say, "No! You must accept visible for us BOD otherwise I do not have any case against you".(March 2018: Still not comment from Fr.Anthony Cekada)
___________________________________

Likewise, to deny the efficacy of BOD without BOW is heresy even if only hypothetical.
Lionel:
The dogmatic teaching on EENS is de fide.It says all need the baptism of water for salvation. This is not my opinion.
If you claim BOD excludes the baptism of water you are denying the dogma like the liberals. This is heretical for me.It would also be your opinion. 
The second important point is, even if it was your opinion, either way, with or without the baptism of water, you are referring to an invisible, non existing case out of our reality.(March 2018. Yes or No ? Still not answer.)
_____________________

It doesn't matter that we can't see the dead, etc.
Lionel.
It matters when Fr. Cekada assumes BOD is visible, and Bishop Sanborm assumes LG 16 and LG 8 cases refer to explicit people, known people. Since if these cases were not explicit Vatican Council II for them would not be an exception to the old ecclesiology based on EENS.
But it is an exception. So it matters when they infer that they can see the dead.(March 2018: No denial or apology from the sedevacantists. Some three years have passed.)

3. They are in mortal sin. He is not wrong. LG 16 is an heretical hypothesis as explained above.

Lionel:
Is LG 16 ( invincible ignorance)a heretical hypothesis when it is explicit or implicit?
Why cannot Fr. Cekada answer this?
For me LG 16 refers to an invisible case and so it  is not an explicit exception to EENS. It is an not an exception to the old ecclesiology based on EENS.So Vatican Council II does not contradict the old ecclesiology. Since there cannot be an explicit exception( LG 16, LG 8 etc).
For Fr. Cekada and the Florida seminary LG 16 and LG 8 refer to explicit cases and so VC2 becomes a break with the old ecclesiology. They condemn VC2 when the fault lies with them not making the correct explicit-implicit distinction.
Like Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Cekada's formation under Archbishop Lefebvre, all three of them innocently have used an irrationality to interpret VC2. So the result is heretical and so they reject VC2.
Archbishop Lefebvre was correct that VC2 was heretical but he did not know that it was because of the invisible-visible distinction. This was not known to the Magisterium too. So they did not help him. Instead they wrongly excommunicated him.
In his mind Vatican Council II was heretical and he was correct.It was heretical with explicit LG 16, LG 8 instead of implicit LG 16 and LG 8.

Bp. Sanborn and Fr. Cekada have been informed. They are not in ignorance.Why must they make the same error as Archbishop Lefebvre and Cardinal Ratzinger?(March 2018: They are using the New Theology of the modernists and were not aware of it. Now that they have been informed they do not want to admit they are wrong.They continue to teach seminarians this irrationality. It is the same with the pontifical seminaries and universities in Rome.)

-Lionel Andrades