Michael and Peter Dimond on their videos accuse people of being in heresy but do not deny that they interpret Vatican Council II with a false premise to create a non traditional and heretical conclusion.
Do they interpret Vatican Council II and magisterial documents with a false premise ? They simply have to say yes or no.
Do they interpret Vatican Council II and magisterial documents with a false premise ? They simply have to say yes or no.
Similarly since they interpret the baptism of desire etc with the same irrational premise the Catechism of Pope Pius X would contradict itself and also the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.
I have mentioned this many times and also have e-mailed these blog posts to them.
They ignore this and continue to accuse others of heresy and say that popes who are in heresy cannot be popes.
They do not deny that the baptism of desire can be assumed to be phyisically visible or invisible and the conclusion would be different.
They do not deny that if there are invisible for us and visible for us cases of being saved in invincible ignorance the conclusion would be different.
They interpret the baptism of desire as being visible for us. This can be seen in their book on this subject and in posts on their website. While I assume that the baptism of desire is always physically invisible and personally unknown to us.
So our conclusions would be different. Vatican Council II is a continuation with Tradition for them it is a rupture.
For them LG 16( invincible ignorance) and LG 14( case of the unknown catechumen) would be objective exceptions to EENS. For me they are only theoretical cases in 2016.Again this is the difference in our conclusions, since for the MHFM hypothetical cases are not hypothetical and for me they are only hypothetical.
So what is the point in saying that A or B is in heresy when they cannot over a few years respond to what I have been saying.
I have quoted John Martignoni the American apologist on EWTN who says that the baptism of desire refers to a 'zero case'.So it is not an exception to EENS.This possibily goes over their head.
I have quoted priests in Rome saying that there are no known cases of the baptism of desire in our reality and so it does not contradict Feeneyite EENS. There is no comment from the MHFM. Their book does not discuss this aspect of the baptism of desire.
I affirm Feeneyite EENS so the MHFM cannot say that I am in heresy on this point.
I affirm Feeneyite Vatican Council II while for the MHFM there is only Cushingite Vatican Council II.For me they are in heresy.
Do they interpret Vatican Council II and magisterial documents with a false premise ? They simply have to say yes or no.
-Lionel Andrades
Michael Matt and Michael and Peter Dimond are still politically correct with the Left on Vatican Council II : irrational interpretation of Catechisms and Magisterial documents
Do they interpret Vatican Council II and magisterial documents with a false premise ? They simply have to say yes or no.
-Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment