Thursday, March 19, 2015

Bishop Richard Williamson will consecrate a new bishop not knowing all this

Williamson (left) with FaureBishop Richard Williamson and the SSPX (Resistance) still do not know the following.
The Good Thief on the Cross or St.Emerentiana cannot be exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma. Since they existed centuries back. Exceptions must exist in the present times. Something or someone can only be an exception today. A possibility cannot be an exception to the dogma today.

Every exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation has to happen today.Otherwise it will not be an exception today.
An exception to the dogma on salvation must happen in the present times, today,living memory, existing time, visible and concrete, March 19,2015, Feast of St.Joseph.
 Something in the past cannot be an exception to the dogma on March 19.Something that will happen in the future cannot be an exception to the dogma on outside the church there is no salvation.This is elementary. Something that happens in Heaven and is known only to God, cannot be an exception on earth to all needing to convert formally into the Church in March 2015. Elementary philosophy.
So if someone dies in invincible ignorance ( with or without the baptism of water) it would be known only to God. The same would be true of implicit desire for the baptism of water.
The message of the dogma is related to today.All need 'faith and baptism' for salvation today.All need to convert today into the Church to avoid the fires of Hell.
Even if someone were to die without faith and baptism ( which is not de fide) we would not know of any exception today.he would be invisible and unknown to us. These persons would be dead and in Heaven.
If a pope, cardinal,bishop or magisterial document infers that there are exceptions today it is false.It has to be rejected.This is common sense.
Vatican Council II mentions being saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire.We must not infer that these cases are exceptions to the dogma.
The dead -past, present or future- cannot be exceptions to all needing to convert into the Church today.Cardinals Marchetti and Cushing in 1949 did not know of any exceptions.At Vatican Council II ( 1960-1965) no one there knew of anyone saved without faith and baptism.
When Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus were issued neither did Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger know of any exceptions to the dogma.
There is no known case of salvation outside the Church i.e without Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.So why do the Catechism of Pope John Paul II, Dominus Iesus, Redemptoris Missio and other magisterial documents, imply that there is salvation outside the Church? Yet they do.So does Bishop Williamson.
We have found the missing link.Here are the errors.
1.Someone in the past is an exception to the dogma on March 19.
2.Someone living will be an exception to the dogma today. He will be saved without faith and baptism.
3.Someone in Heaven is an exception to the dogma on earth.
  The magisterium has made a factual error and Bishop Richard Williamson  has not noticed it.Since he makes the same mistake. He and the SSPX also assume that there are explicit exceptions to the dogma based on these three points above. 
When he was in the SSPX he made this mistake with reference to Feeneyism in an article published on the SSPX website. So today he cannot   say that Vatican Council II  affirms the strict interpretation of the dogma since for him there are exceptions in Vatican Council II.
 
Bishop Williamson will consecrate a new bishop not knowing all this.-Lionel Andrades
 



The two hermeneutics depend on the use or omission of the irrational premise from Marchetti's letter http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/the-two-hermenutics-depend-on-use-or.html 



SSPX show the Vatican the Marchetti error carried over into Redemptoris Missio, Dominus Iesus and other magisterial documents

January 13, 2015
Cardinal Muller's doctrinal error placed on the Vatican website!

The SSPX must be prepared for the CDF's wrong arguments









 





 

No comments: