March 1, 2014
Dave Armstrong interprets Vatican Council II and accepts the Novus Ordo Mass using the irrational premise
http://eucharistandmission.
Dave Armstrong agrees he uses the irrational premise ?
He assumes that there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in 2014?
Dave Armstrong, a Catholic, assumes that the baptism of desire is explicit and visible for us and so an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
He uses this same principle to assume that Vatican Council II (LG 16 etc) contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Is this not heresy? Is this not irrationality?
__________________________
Dave responds:
"You can't talk about abortion because you're not a woman!"
The topic is not baptism of desire.
___________________________
Dave let me ask you what I have asked Fr.Angelo Geiger F.I.
First of all I,Lionel, accept Vatican Council II.
However I accept that salvation mentioned, referred to or alluded to in Vatican Council II is invisible for me and visible only for God. Since it is invisible for me in 2014 there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. There is nothing in Vatican Council II which contradicts the traditional teaching on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.Do you Dave also believe that all salvation referred to in Vatican Council II is invisible for us on earth ?
So being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) is irrelevant to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known to the saints Robert Bellarmine, Francis of Assisi and St.Anthony Marie Claret ?
I am not denying Vatican Council II. I am only denying that being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) etc, can be visible in the flesh for all of us. I am accepting invisible for us LG 16 as a possibility. I am denying explicit for us LG 16.
I am affirming the baptism of desire in faith. I am denying that it is defacto and visible to us human beings.
This would mean all Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims and others need 'faith and baptism' (Ad Gentes 7) to avoid Hell and there are no exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II ?
This is the traditional teaching that Dignatis Humanae(DH),Vatican Council II asks us Catholics to proclaim.DH mentions that we have the religious liberty, in a state with a secular Constitution, to proclaim traditional teachings of the Catholic Church.
So what about the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) ? Would it be sufficient for you if they affirm Vatican Council II just like me?
And what about Fr.Stefano Mannelli F.I and other members of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, could they also accept Vatican Council II just like me?
-Lionel Andrades
http://socrates58.blogspot.it/2014/02/peter-kwasniewski-fr-thomas-kocik-and_26.html
He assumes that there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in 2014?
Dave Armstrong, a Catholic, assumes that the baptism of desire is explicit and visible for us and so an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
He uses this same principle to assume that Vatican Council II (LG 16 etc) contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Is this not heresy? Is this not irrationality?
__________________________
Dave responds:
"You can't talk about abortion because you're not a woman!"
The topic is not baptism of desire.
___________________________
Dave let me ask you what I have asked Fr.Angelo Geiger F.I.
First of all I,Lionel, accept Vatican Council II.
However I accept that salvation mentioned, referred to or alluded to in Vatican Council II is invisible for me and visible only for God. Since it is invisible for me in 2014 there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. There is nothing in Vatican Council II which contradicts the traditional teaching on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.Do you Dave also believe that all salvation referred to in Vatican Council II is invisible for us on earth ?
So being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) is irrelevant to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known to the saints Robert Bellarmine, Francis of Assisi and St.Anthony Marie Claret ?
I am not denying Vatican Council II. I am only denying that being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) etc, can be visible in the flesh for all of us. I am accepting invisible for us LG 16 as a possibility. I am denying explicit for us LG 16.
I am affirming the baptism of desire in faith. I am denying that it is defacto and visible to us human beings.
This would mean all Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims and others need 'faith and baptism' (Ad Gentes 7) to avoid Hell and there are no exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II ?
This is the traditional teaching that Dignatis Humanae(DH),Vatican Council II asks us Catholics to proclaim.DH mentions that we have the religious liberty, in a state with a secular Constitution, to proclaim traditional teachings of the Catholic Church.
So what about the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) ? Would it be sufficient for you if they affirm Vatican Council II just like me?
And what about Fr.Stefano Mannelli F.I and other members of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, could they also accept Vatican Council II just like me?
-Lionel Andrades
http://socrates58.blogspot.it/2014/02/peter-kwasniewski-fr-thomas-kocik-and_26.html
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment