The Most Holy Family Monastery (MHFM) still assume that the baptism of desire is physically visible to us on earth. For them the baptism of desire is an explicit exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This same error is being made by the traditionalists, liberals and other sedevacantists.
Peter and Michael Dimond cannot name any one in 2014 saved with the baptism of desire. Yet they will consider the baptism of desire as an objective-to-us exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.They accept the dogma and reject the baptism of desire ( explicit).
They cannot cite any text in Vatican Council II or the Catechism of the Catholic Church which says that the baptism of desire is physically visible to us or that it it is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
They will reject Vatican Council II since they assume that all salvation mentioned in the Council is ' seen in the flesh'. It would have to be seen in the flesh to be an exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.If something or someone does not exist in our reality it cannot be an exception.Yet it is an exception for so many Catholics.
The same errror is made by the Vatican Curia, the SSPX and the sedevacantists CMRI.The case of the visible to us baptism of desire!This is something they all have in common.
-Lionel Andrades
From the MHFM website: .E-Exchanges
Update
Subject:
Catechism of Trent and "Baptism of Desire" update
Brothers,
RE:
Your updated version of the section of your Outside the Catholic Church There
is Absolutely No Salvation book, entitled: The Catechism of Trent and
"Baptism of Desire"
First,
let me congratulate you on the excellent research that had to have been done to
produce such a meticulous and superb presentation. There is so much for one to consider within
these (approximately 150) paragraphs. But I wish to say that I appreciate your
dignified yet likeable, easy-to-follow manner of refutation, which always makes
it a joy, and never a chore, to listen to or
to read…
The
points you selected from the Catechism as those specified to be taught to the
faithful are noteworthy; and its (the Catechism's) repeated references to the
Extraordinary Magisterium are also extremely noteworthy. I'm glad you discussed the matter of popes
having recommend the Summa even after the Definition of the Immaculate
Conception. This is important for the reasons you explained and clarified: it
doesn't make the Summa somehow infallible (and how could it be when it
contains such errors?). I would like to
add that not only does the general approbation of popes not make the Summa
infallible, but it also does not make the popes who have given the Summa a
general approbation (often accompanied by glowing praises) heretics
themselves, as some radical schismatics have falsely asserted; for as you said:
"The papacy and the dogmas unerringly define the rule of Catholic faith. The
rule of faith is not decided by theologians or fallible books. . . . Men can be
mistaken and overlook things in a book, as the facts about the Summa
Theologiae prove. . . . God allows errors to be taught by fallible men and
in fallible sources because, as Scripture teaches, there must be false
doctrines.
1
Cor. 11:19: “For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved,
may be manifest among you.”
You
irrefutably proved your case that the arguments used by "baptism of desire"
heretics, and others, which they cite from the Catechism of Trent, are "not even
part of the official teaching of the Catechism to be passed along to the
faithful".
To
repeat your words: "If the obstinate proponents of “baptism of desire” believed
in God, they would focus on what the Magisterium clearly teaches. They would
adhere to what the infallibly-protected proclamations of God’s Church directly
proclaim on the matter. . . If they had fidelity to papal teaching, they would
then see that the Magisterium has never taught “baptism of desire”, or that
anyone can be saved without the Catholic faith, or that anyone can be saved
without actual membership in the Church. They would realize that while God
protects every inch and paragraph of such proclamations, the same protection is
not granted to every paragraph of the teaching of catechisms, theologians, etc.
. . . The teachings of the Chair of St. Peter cannot be mistaken, and that
protection was not granted to everyone.
My
sincere thanks for your massive contributions to the eternal welfare of souls in
this time of the Great Apostasy.
Passage
Dear
Brothers:
How
applicable… is that passage from Luke 16: "If they will not listen to Moses
and the prophets, neither would they believe were one to rise from the dead."
Protestants and false Christians like to believe that the sin which damned Dives
was his unwillingness to assist a homeless and hungry man sleeping in Dives'
driveway when, in fact, Dives could very well have been a philanthropist and
pillar of his community from a worldly point of view. Surely there were such
individuals then (as now) who were publicly known and esteemed for their
largess. But as this important quote makes clear, the sin of Dives and his
brothers was the sin against faith. The contrast between Dives
and Lazarus was meant to remind the listener that worldly goods
will avail nothing, and that the only true Good was the attainment of eternal
life. This parable, therefore, was and is a warning not only to the Jews
but applies every bit as much to the false traditionalists and other heretics
who reject the dogmas of the Catholic Church. The true Popes, under the New
Law, are the equivalent of Moses in the Old. For men to disregard God's
Authorized Spokesmen was, and is, to reject the very authority of God Himself.
In a way, it is even to pretend that God does not
exist.
Thus,
this parable should be a clear warning to all of how
grave the rejection of Catholic dogma actually is. When heretics
reject dogma, they are rejecting God, pure and simple. When Core and Dathan,
the protestants/heretics of their day, attempted to disregard God's appointed
leader and spokesman (preferring to create "doctrines" themselves), the earth
opened up and Core and his followers were sucked down into Hell where they are
now and will be forever. Long before them, it was the rejection of God's
revealed dogmas by members of His first order of creatures which established
Hell to begin with. And ultimately, and probably soon, it will be the almost
total rejection of God's dogmas by mankind that will bring about the end of the
world. It couldn't be simpler. When creatures reject the will and authority of
God and refuse to obey Him, the consequences are immense and
eternal.
The
research/work which MHFM has done to demonstrate the infallible Catholic dogmas…
is nothing short of astounding. This soul-saving information is available
nowhere else today. Thus, what ingratitude and arrogance people have -- and
what frauds they prove themselves to be -- when these so-called "Catholics" and
"Christians" dismiss this historic and authentic Catholic scholarship out of
hand and obstinately refuse to even examine it. Be assured that… we too
daily contemplate (with horror) the breadth of the unpassable chasm
between those who will to believe, and those who will not. Thank you
MHFM.
Lee
Ann
BOD
Subject:
BOD
Dear
MHFM,
Great
Catholic teaching on BOD. I hope all Catholics read this material. Scripture
teaches us to be holy as our heavenly Father is holy. But if we desire to be
holy as the Father is, does that mean we are holy? We have to act and do God's
will to be holy in the eyes of God. Being fulfilled in the desire to be holy
doesn't cut it… And so it is with the desire for baptism, it doesn't measure up
to actually being baptized… Satan disguises himself as the angel of light. BOD
is just one of his demonic tricks that many fall into. Thank you for this
heavenly work in these wicked times.
-Dea
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment