Repost : Benedictines at the MHFM must note whether the interpretation of BOD, BOB and I.I is explicit or implicit, objective or subjective, visible or invisible. This determines how they interpret Vatican Council II, the Catechisms and other magisterial documents.

NOVEMBER 15, 2018

Benedictines at the MHFM must note whether the interpretation of BOD, BOB and I.I is explicit or implicit, objective or subjective, visible or invisible. This determines how they interpret Vatican Council II, the Catechisms and other magisterial documents.

Michael and Peter Dimond of the Most Holy Family Monastery(MHFM),USA are still interpreting hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire(BOD),baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I), as being non hypothetical and objective people.So they reject BOD,BOB and I.I.They are not conscious of this error.

When they correct this error Vatican Council II will not contradict the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) which they support.

When St. Thomas Aquinas mentions BOD he still held the strict interpretation of EENS just like Pope Leo the Great.Since the BOD is always hypothetical. It does not contradict EENS.

I affirm the strict interpretation of EENS and also hypothetical and speculative BOD, BOB and I.I, at the same time.
I do not have to reject BOD, BOB and I.I.
I only reject BOD, BOB and I.I as exceptions to EENS. 
Since if they were exceptions to EENS it would suggest that  they are objective cases, which they are not for us humans.

So St. Thomas Aquinas was a Feeneyite, he held the 'rigorist' interpretation of the dogma EENS. Since there can be no practical exceptions of the BOD or I.I. Literally, we cannot meet or physically see someone saved with BOD.

MISTAKE AT VATICAN COUNCIL II
This was a mistake the Council Fathers made at Vatican Council II. They assumed there were known exceptions to all needing 'faith and baptism' for salvation (Ad Gentes 7).They considered the case of the catechumen and being saved in invincible ignorance, as personally known people saved outside the Catholic Church in 1960-1965 or earlier.

This was an objective mistake at Vatican Council II and Michael and Peter Dimond must note this.So LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc  are only hypothetical and speculative. They cannot contradict the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church, which the Dimond brothers support.

This means the MHFM would have to radically change their concept of Vatican Council II.

Now even the old catechisms, when they mention the speculative cases  of BOD and I.I  would be contradicting themselves for Michael and Peter Dimond.Since the catechisms also affirm the traditional interpretation of  the dogma EENS.

The old catechisms like that of Pope Pius X affirm the strict interpretation of EENS and also invincible ignorance-but invincible ignorance is is interpreted as referring to objective cases for Michael and Peter Dimond and subjective and invisible cases for me.So there are  objective exceptions to EENS in the catechisms for them but not for me.

So the Benedictines at the MHFM must note whether the interpretation of BOD, BOB and I.I is explicit or implicit, objective or subjective, visible or invisible. This determines how they interpret Vatican Council II, the Catechisms and other magisterial documents.-Lionel Andrades

NOVEMBER 14, 2018

Pope Leo The Great supported the norm for salvation which is the baptism of water -Bro. Peter Dimond, Most Holy Family Monastery

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/11/pope-leo-great-supported-norm-for.html

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/11/benedictines-at-mhfm-must-note-whether.html