-Lionel Andrades
Friday, November 30, 2018
Michael and Peter Dimond too attend Mass in scandal and I am not referring to their sedevacantism.
Michael and Peter Dimond of the Most Holy Famiy Monastery, USA, too attend Mass in scandal and I am not referring to their sedevacantism.
They interpret the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood (BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) as exceptions to the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). So they reject BOD,BOB and I.I.It would contradict the dogma EENS for them.
In their mind they have a concept of BOD,BOB and I.I as being known people saved outside the Church.They are visible and real non Catholics and not just hypothetical cases.
For me BOD, BOB and I.I are only hypothetical cases and are not exceptions to EENS.I affirm EENS like Michael and Peter Dimond but our understanding of BOD, BOB and I.Iis different.
For me they cannot be objective people. We cannot meet or see someone personally known with BOD,BOB and I.I.This is common sense.It is not a just personal view.It is something obvious for every one.Even a non Catholic would agree with me.
But BOD,BOB and I.I are exceptions for the Most Holy Family Monastery and so are not hypothetical and theoretical. This is their reasoning whether they realize or not.
So see the doctrinal confusion they are in.
1. The Catechism of the Council of Trent when it mentions 'the desire theorof' contradicts the Catechism of Pope Pius X which says all need to be members of the Church for salvation.So the Council of Trent mentions an exception to all needing to be Catholics for salvation for Michael and Peter Dimond. It contradicts Pope Pius X.
2.Then the Catechism of Pope Pius X mentions invincible ignorance. This contradicts the Syllabus of Errors ( ecumenism of return) and the Council of Trent on no salvation outside the Church.Pius X would be mentioning exceptions for them.
3.Then the Catechism of Pius X and Trent would be contradicting the past ecclesiology and EENS as it was known to the missionaries and Magisterium in the 16th century.
I could give more examples.
The heresy arises as follows.
1.The Creeds( Athanasius, Apostles and Nicene) are interpreted with this error.
2.Vatican Council II is rejected because of this error in reasoning.
3.The Catechism of the Catholic Church is rejected because of this same irrational reasoning i.e references to invisible, theoretical cases are assumed to be objective and known people and that too, saved outside the Catholic Church, when in reality there are no such known people.
3. An ecumenism of return and the past ecclesiology based on outside the Church there is no salvation is rejected since BOD, BOB and I.I in the Catechisms etc are exceptions.
4.There is no traditional Mission theologically, since outside the Church there is salvation according to the Catechism of Trent, Pius X and John Paul II. So there is no call to conversion and membership to the Catholic Church, to avoid the fires of Hell.People are allegedly saved outside the Church.
5.There is no proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King, theologically, since outside the Church there is salvation according to the Catechisms, Vatican Council II etc.
So how can Michael and Peter Dimond go up to receive the Eucharist at Mass with this theological and doctrinal mess, they are in ?
To change the understanding of the Creed, theologically, is heresy.
To theologically interpret Vatican Council II as a rupture with EENS is heresy, at least, for me.
To misinterpret the Catechisms using a false premise and inference,is heresy.
Of course they would go back into Tradition and affirm the traditional teachings on ecumenism and no salvation outside the Church but they still reject Magisterial documents.
They do not affirm the past eccesiology of the Church, reject Vatican Council II and the Catechism(1994) is interpreted rationally.BOD, BOB and I.I are exceptions to the past ecclesiology for them.
To not interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechism(1994) rationally and in harmony with EENS for me is heresy.
With BOD,BOB and I.I being exceptions to EENS they create confusion on the Creeds.They do not choose to interpret the Creeds like me.This is not how the Magisterium interpreted the Creeds in the past centuries.
Then how can Pope Pius X and Pope Pius IX contradict each other? There is no contradiction for me.
How can the Catechism of Pope Pius X and Trent contradict each other? How can St. Thomas Aquinas contradict EENS and BOD and I.I?
This is all a scandal.
So before they receive the Eucharist at Mass they could clarify the following.
ORTHODOX CLARIFICATION NEEDED
ORTHODOX CLARIFICATION NEEDED
1.BOD,BOB and I.I refer to hypothetical cases and it is the same with LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22, AG 11( seeds of the Word) etc.All are hypothetical only in 2018.
a) BOD, BOB and I.I are hypothetical and so they do not contradict EENS.
b) LG 8 etc are also hypothetical and so they do not contradict EENS.
So they could announce that they affirm Vatican Council II in harmony with the strict interpretation of EENS.
2.Since BOD, BOB and I.I are hypothetical and not real people known in 2018 there is no change in the interpretation of the Nicene, Apostles and Athanasius Creed.
3.Since BOD, BOB and I.I are hypothetical the Catechisms do not contradict each other and neither do they contradict the Syllabus of Errors on EENS and an ecumenism of return.
Similarly Mystici Corporis, Quanta Cura etc do not contradict traditional EENS as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century.
St. Thomas Aquinas also does not contradict himself when he affirms the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS and also mentions the man in the forest in ignorance or some one saved with the desire for baptism only.On the baptism of desire, St. Thomas Aquinas is speculative and does not mention a particular, known person. This is something obvious.
Then the MHFM would be saying that they accept :-
1.EENS( without BOD,BOB and I.I being exceptions).
2.Creeds( without BOD, BOB and I.I being exceptions).
3.Vatican Council II ( with BOD/BOB/I.I and LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, not being exceptions).
4.Catechisms( which do not mention any exceptions to EENS).
On the negative side they will have rejected these Magisterial documents, where ever they mistakenly assume BOD, BOB and I.I are exceptions to EENS.
1.Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
2.Vatican Council II.
3.Catechism of the Catholic Church(1994).
4.Redemptoris Mission, Dominus Iesus.
5.Etc.
HYPOTHETICAL CASES IN VATICAN COUNCIL II ARE ONLY HYPOTHETICAL
HYPOTHETICAL CASES IN VATICAN COUNCIL II ARE ONLY HYPOTHETICAL
It is important to note that even though Vatican Council II mentions hypothetical cases along with orthodox passages on salvation, which are mistaken to be exceptions by many, we can interpret these hypothetical cases as just being hypothetical.They cannot be anything else.They cannot be exceptions. Then there is no confusion and contradiction.
SECOND PART OF LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE HAS TO BE REJECTED
SECOND PART OF LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE HAS TO BE REJECTED
It is the same with the Catechism. Also the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 has to be rejected. It is from here that the error has come into Vatican Council II and then the rest of the Church.
Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus were also written using BOD, BOB and I.I as exceptions to EENS. Similarly the Balamand Declaration and the Joint Statement on Justification with the Lutherans were put together based on this same philosophical and theological error.
To change the meaning of the Creeds is a mortal sin of faith. It is a scandal.Now it is known to many people. There is no correction yet from Michael and Peter Dimond. The scandal must be ended before they receive the Eucharist at the Latin Mass. Otherwise it is sacrilege.
Sedevacantism based on Vatican Council II is now obsolete. The Council is traditional.
-Lionel Andrades
Sedevacantism based on Vatican Council II is now obsolete. The Council is traditional.
-Lionel Andrades
August 27, 2018
The Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II(Feeneyite-without the premise) support the interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Peter and Michael Dimond at the Most Holy Family Monastery, USA
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-catechism-of-catholic-church-and.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
