Michael and Peter Dimond at the Most Holy Family Monastery(MHFM) agree that cases of the BOD, BOB and I.I. 1 are always hypothetical and physically invisible for us human beings. Similarly LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II are always hypothetical for us.So there are no practical exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) in the present times.Vatican Council II does not contradict EENS and the past ecclesiology. There is no rupture also with an ecumenism of return, when hypothetical cases are assumed to be hypothetical only.
So is it wrong to go into sedevacantism assuming Vatican Council II is a rupture with EENS ?
Should Vatican Council II be rejected when it is in harmony with Tradition( EENS, Syllabus of Errors)?
How can the MHFM continue to interpret the Catechism of Pope Pius X when it mentions invincible ignorance for example, as a rupture with the past ecclesiology, EENS and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX ( ecumenism of return)?
Presently Michael and Peter Dimond are making the same mistake as those whom they call 'the Vatican Council II sect'.This is also heresy.We cannot re-interpret the Catechism of Pope Pius X by using an irrational premise and inference.
We cannot re-interpret the Syllabus of Errors as a rupture with the Catechism of Pius X by assuming hypothetical cases are objective.
We cannot re-interpret Vatican Council II by assuming there is known salvation outside the Church and at the same time rejecting a rational interpretation of the Council which would be in harmony with EENS and the past ecclesiology of the Church. This too is heresy for me.
How can they go to church on Sunday for Mass in Latin without affirming a rational interpretation of Vatican Council II, the Catechisms, the Nicene Creed...?
The MHFM criticizes St.Thomas Aquinas for mentioning the baptism of desire as if the baptism of desire is an exceptions to the traditional strict interpretation of EENS.
They also criticize other saints assuming that BOD, BOB and I.I are exceptions to EENS, when they really are not.
The MHFM criticizes St.Thomas Aquinas for mentioning the baptism of desire as if the baptism of desire is an exceptions to the traditional strict interpretation of EENS.
They also criticize other saints assuming that BOD, BOB and I.I are exceptions to EENS, when they really are not.
-Lionel Andrades
1.
Baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/08/message-incomplete-most-holy-family.html
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment