WILL CARDINAL PELL SIDE WITH THE PRIEST WHO SAYS WE CAN JUDGE WHO HAS THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE ?

Michael a Catholic trade union leader from the Diocese of Paramatta and whose bishop is Anthony Fischer was responding to the report

REPORT ‘SYDNEY PRIEST SPOTS BAPTISM OF DESIRE CASES DOWNTOWN ?’ E-MAILED TO ARCHDIOCESE OF SYDNEY: NO RESPONSE, ISSUE IS THE EUCHARIST

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2010/10/report-sydney-priest-spots-baptism-of.html#links

Michael says he notices 'similar charachteristics with my writing and that of schismatics, sedevacantists and the milder Feeneyities’

I responded : I accept Vatican Council II , the Catechism of the Catholic Church and other Church documents. So your charge of schismatics, sedes, etc will not work here.

Michael then says that my report on Fr.John Gorge is false since he ‘has provided you with Church interpretation based on sould theology. Cardinal Pell of Sydney will rightly support Fr.George you ought to realize. So would Rome?'

Lionel’s response:

On the other hand I am aware of modernism in the present day of which you and Fr. George are a few cases among many.

I have quoted Ad Gentes 7, CCC 845,846, Dominus Iesus 20 and the ex cathedra dogma and have asked Fr.George to affirm them but you'll will not(on the Internet-board True Catholic).

Also he makes me laugh when he repeatedly indicated that we can know who has the baptism of desire.

Your claim that LG 16, CCC 847 etc (invincible ignorance, baptism of desire etc) is explicit has no basis in any Catholic Magisterial teaching. The documents are neutral with respect to Baptism (BOD) of desire, its you and and the other heretics, who claim it refers to 'explicit' BOD etc.

Common sense asks, aside from the faulty interpretation how can it be explicit for us?

So this is your 'church interpretation ' with 'sound theology'.

VATICAN : AN INJUSTICE IS BEING DONE TO THE MOST HOLY FAMILY MONASTERY , RECONCILIATION NEEDED

Negotiations have not been open to them as to all Fr.Leonard Feeney’s communities. Misunderstandings need to be removed then they can be in a position to want to enter the Church. The main issue is the same, extra ecclesiam nulla salus. New York Archdiocese in no doctrinal position for talks.

An injustice is still being done to the Most Holy Family Monastery(MHFM),New York who call themselves sedevantists since no one from the Catholic Church is willing to theologically explain extra ecclesiam nulla salus and show them that they are in full agreement with the offiical teaching of the Catholic Church which has not been retracted.

No one representing the Catholic Church is willing to sit together with them and talk .

Archbishop Timothy Dolan, the Archbishop of New York would be considered a heretic by the MHFM since he has rejected the ‘rigorist interpretation’ of the thrice defined ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The Archbishop and his catechesis department no where mentions that Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II, Catechism of the Catholic Church 845,846 and Dominus Iesus 20, besides other Magisterial teachings are in accord with the MHFM’s understanding of the dogma.

Since the Vatican and the Diocese of Worcester have recognized a few years back, with canonical status, the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney may be here there is an answer to negotiations with the MHFM. The St.Benedicts Abbey and the Sisters of St.Benedict Center both hold the ‘rigorist interpretation’ of the ex cathedra dogma as do the MHFM who mistakenly call themselves sedevacantists. The Abbot of the St.Benedict’s Abbey is in good standing with the Catholic Church and has written a book on this subject.

He could bring out the points that we Catholics have in common with the Dimond brothers. Once all understand that we agree on the main issue with them, extra ecclesiam nulla salus, misunderstandings on the other issues can be removed.

The present Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has been a former professor at the Jesuit Gregorian University Rome and has not made his views on this issue public. He could be another professor of the Gregorian or Boston College and so is not qualified to negotiate with the MHFM or represent all Catholics.

_________________________________________