Michael and Peter Dimond did not know that Vatican Council II can be interpreted without the false premise and the conclusion would be traditional.Now they know.
But they are not making the change. Their website was based upon the false interpretation of Vatican Council II.
For so many years, since they have been informed, they cannot or do not want to interpret Vatican Council II, without the false premise.
They criticize the ' Vatican Council II sect ', the mainline Catholic Church of the popes since Paul VI but do not mention that they too, the MHFM, interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise and so there is a rupture with Tradition (Syllabus of Errors etc).
I have written to them so many times.
Someone could ask them if LG 8, LG 14( baptism of desire), LG 16( invincible ignorance), UR 3, GS 22 etc refer to visible or invisible cases in 2020.If they are visible then they cannot be exceptions to the MHFM strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). If the MHFM considered LG 8 etc as exceptions to EENS and the rest of Tradition then they imply that there are physically visible cases, for them, in the present times, for there to be exceptions.But this would be a false premise. It is irrational.
But if they did not use the false premise then Vatican Council II would not contradict their understanding of EENS.
Yet becaue of this false premise Vatican Council II emerges, for them, as a rupture with Tradition.
When the popes and saints mentioned the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance was there a rupture with EENS ( Cantate Domino, Council if Florence 1441) ? Of course not. Not for me.The popes and saints over the centuries were referring to hypothetical cases only. They could not be objective people, non Catholics saved outside the Church. Since only God can know if somoene was saved outside the Church, without faith and baptism. So the BOD and I.I were never exceptions to EENS. The Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO) made a mistake and so did some of the Council Fathers at Vatican Council II.The same mistake is made by Michael and Peter Dimond.
If think what I write here is quite simple and easy to understand.
Would they admit that they interpret Vatican Council II with a false premise like the 'Vatican Council II sect'?-Lionel Andrades
They criticize the ' Vatican Council II sect ', the mainline Catholic Church of the popes since Paul VI but do not mention that they too, the MHFM, interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise and so there is a rupture with Tradition (Syllabus of Errors etc).
I have written to them so many times.
Someone could ask them if LG 8, LG 14( baptism of desire), LG 16( invincible ignorance), UR 3, GS 22 etc refer to visible or invisible cases in 2020.If they are visible then they cannot be exceptions to the MHFM strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). If the MHFM considered LG 8 etc as exceptions to EENS and the rest of Tradition then they imply that there are physically visible cases, for them, in the present times, for there to be exceptions.But this would be a false premise. It is irrational.
But if they did not use the false premise then Vatican Council II would not contradict their understanding of EENS.
Yet becaue of this false premise Vatican Council II emerges, for them, as a rupture with Tradition.
When the popes and saints mentioned the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance was there a rupture with EENS ( Cantate Domino, Council if Florence 1441) ? Of course not. Not for me.The popes and saints over the centuries were referring to hypothetical cases only. They could not be objective people, non Catholics saved outside the Church. Since only God can know if somoene was saved outside the Church, without faith and baptism. So the BOD and I.I were never exceptions to EENS. The Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO) made a mistake and so did some of the Council Fathers at Vatican Council II.The same mistake is made by Michael and Peter Dimond.
If think what I write here is quite simple and easy to understand.
Would they admit that they interpret Vatican Council II with a false premise like the 'Vatican Council II sect'?-Lionel Andrades
JULY 14, 2020
MHFM uses the false premise to interpret Vatican Council IIJULY 14, 2020
The St.Benedict Centers could affirm EENS and Vatican Council II without the Lefebvrist theology
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/07/the-stbenedict-centers-could-affirm.html
_______________________________
JULY 13, 2020
The CDF muist inform the pontifical universities , where the F.I seminarians are enrolled, and the Congregation for Catholic Education, to avoid the common error on Vatican Council II.
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/07/the-cdf-muist-inform-pontifical.html
JULY 8, 2020
To understand what I write ask yourself...
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/07/to-understand-what-i-write-i-ask.html
The 'missing link' discovered : what makes Vatican Council II traditional or heretical
JUNE 11, 2014
___________________________________
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment