Saturday, October 10, 2015

An innovation was made in the Baltimore Catechism ,accepted in the Catechism of Pope Pius XII became Magisterial in 1949 at Boston and was included in Vatican Council II

 sisters

Comments from the blogpost Sedevacantist and Roman bishops and clergy want to remain politically correct
Introibo Ad Altare Dei said...
I just answered your points. You can't answer mine. You claim there are two ways to interpret Vatican II--that makes it heretical!
Pope Pius VI, condemning the Synod of Pistoia, Bull “Auctorem fidei," August 28, 1794:
“[The Ancient Doctors] knew the capacity of innovators in the art of deception. In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, they sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith which is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation. This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the circumstances under which it is used. For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error.

"Moreover, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it.

"It is as if the innovators pretended that they always intended to present the alternative passages, especially to those of simple faith who eventually come to know only some part of the conclusions of such discussions which are published in the common language for everyone's use. Or again, as if the same faithful had the ability on examining such documents to judge such matters for themselves without getting confused and avoiding all risk of error. It is a most reprehensible technique for the insinuation of doctrinal errors and one condemned long ago by our predecessor Saint Celestine who found it used in the writings of Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, and which he exposed in order to condemn it with the greatest possible severity. Once these texts were examined carefully, the impostor was exposed and confounded, for he expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed.

"In order to expose such snares, something which becomes necessary with a certain frequency in every century, no other method is required than the following: WHENEVER IT BECOMES NECESSARY TO EXPOSE STATEMENTS WHICH DISGUISE SOME SUSPECTED ERROR OR DANGER UNDER THE VEIL OF AMBIGUITY, ONE MUST DENOUNCE THE PERVERSE MEANING UNDER WHICH THE ERROR OPPOSED TO CATHOLIC TRUTH IS CAMOUFLAGED.”

Pope Pius VI teaches us that if someone veils a heresy in ambiguity, a Catholic must hold him to the heretical meaning and denounce the heretical meaning which is camouflaged in ambiguity. He points out that heretics have always used such tactics to insinuate their doctrinal errors and heresies. There are countless examples from the Vatican II apostasy that could be given for which this teaching applies. There are plenty of bold and unambiguous heresies taught by the Vatican II sect and the Vatican II antipopes, but there are also countless heresies that are veiled in ambiguity or contradictory statements. The fact that these must be held to their heretical meaning is not just the teaching of the Church, but also common sense.
 
For instance, if a man says that he is against abortion but sometimes contradicts himself and votes in favor of it, he is a supporter of abortion. He rejects Catholic teaching. Likewise, if a man teaches that there is no salvation outside the Church but sometimes teaches that souls can be saved without the Catholic Faith, he rejects the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation. If he didn’t believe in salvation outside the Church he wouldn’t teach it even one time. If he didn’t support abortion he wouldn’t vote in favor of it. The fact that he contradicts himself doesn’t show that he is not teaching heresy. Pope Pius VI teaches that heretics have always used such tactics because they are deceivers and dishonest at their core. Those who say that heretics cannot be held to their heretical meanings because they often state precisely the opposite – even sometimes within the same context – or because they veil it in ambiguity, aid and abet heretics, assist the destruction of the Faith and contradict the authoritative teaching of the Church. And this is precisely the method of the post-V2 popes. Welcome to sedevacantism!
 
I just answered your points.
Lionel:
You have not answered a single one and it is sad that Bp. Sanborn and Fr. Cekada do not come to your rescue since they have been trained in philosophy and theology and would be able to answer my questions with rationality and logic.
____________________

Image
 You can't answer mine. You claim there are two ways to interpret Vatican II--that makes it heretical!
Lionel:
Yes I agree one way is heretical. One way is also irrational.As a lay man if you could trace the irrational one you may also discover the heretical one.
____________________

Pope Pius VI, condemning the Synod of Pistoia, Bull “Auctorem fidei," August 28, 1794:
“[The Ancient Doctors] knew the capacity of innovators in the art of deception. In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, they sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith which is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation. This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the circumstances under which it is used. For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error.
Lionel:
Yes the truth has been compromised here. This is why I keep writing about it.
_________________
"Moreover, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done,... It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it.
Lionel:
An innovation was made in the Baltimore Catechism it was accepted in the otherwise good Catechism of Pope Pius XII it was an innocent mistake. It became Magisterial in 1949 at Boston and was included in Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
The error was based on an innocent irrationality and so it can be reversed. I write all this, I refer to a Magisterial heresy not to condemn, but so that it can be corrected.

______________

"It is as if the innovators...a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed.
Lionel:
The error has been insinuated in the Catholic Church and the traditionalists have also accepted it. This was the mistake made by Archbishop Lefebvre in the interpretation of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and Vatican Council II.He promoted liberalism and no one in the SSPX until today can refute what I say. They know I am correct.________________________
 
"In order to expose such snares,... ONE MUST DENOUNCE THE PERVERSE MEANING UNDER WHICH THE ERROR OPPOSED TO CATHOLIC TRUTH IS CAMOUFLAGED.”
Lionel:
Agreed.
So when the Baltimore Catechism suggests the Baptism of desire(BD) and Baptism of blood (BOB)are baptisms like the Baptism of water(BOW) there is ambiguity here.
Since the BOD and BOB cannot be known like the BOW.
They cannot be administered like the BOW.
They depend only on God while the BOW is under our control.
No one in the past has known or see a BOW or BOB case, since that person would only be known to God in Heaven.
So how can zero cases in our reality be relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the necessity for all to receive the baptism of water for salvation.
There is confusion here.
The link was made between BOD and BOW with EENS. In other words BOD and BOB were explicit and known, to be exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.
How can people in Heaven be exceptions to EENS on earth in 2015 for example? This is irrational.
So there is ambiguity here.
________________________

Pope Pius VI teaches us that if someone veils a heresy in ambiguity, a Catholic must hold him to the heretical meaning and denounce the heretical meaning which is camouflaged in ambiguity.
Lionel:
So you could acknowledge the ambiguity at leaset, as a first step.I have already denounced it.
_______________________

He points out that heretics...this teaching applies.
Lionel:
When you refer to the Vatican Council II apostasy I assume this is based on the online writings of Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Cekada, critical of VC2.
Apostasy is a vague word. I have been precise in my writings.
Bp. Sanborn refers to LG 18 ( Subsistit it). For him LG 8 refers to an explicit case which contradicts the old ecclesiology. There is salvation outside the Church for him.
So he concludes that this is apostasy.
For me LG 8 is not explicit. I have cited two links.
So you could be precise and not ambigous and comment on this.
There is a misunderstanding with Lumen Gentium also in their writings.
How many times have I asked you and them if LG 16 is explicit or implicit?
You probably know the answer by now and may have guessed that the sede position is heretical,ambigous and irrational and so no one wants to answer.
_______________________

There are plenty of bold and unambiguous ... Likewise, if a man teaches that there is no salvation outside the Church but sometimes teaches that souls can be saved without the Catholic Faith, he rejects the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation.
Lionel:
Agreed.
'if a man teaches that there is no salvation outside the Church but sometimes teaches that souls can be saved without the Catholic Faith, he rejects the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation.'
And are you saying this is not the position of the Most Holy Family Trinity seminary in Florida, USA under Bishop Sanborn ?
___________________

        If he didn’t believe in salvation outside the Church he wouldn’t teach it even one time.
        Lionel:
       So you believe in salvation outside the Church as do Bishop Sanborn and Fr.    Cekada since LG 8(explicit) refers to salvation outside the Church so you reject Vatican Council II this is apostasy for you.
The faculty at the seminary imply that LG 16 is an exception to EENS. So LG 16 is explicit for them. They use this reasoning to reject VC2.
I do not use this reasoning and none of you will comment on this.

______________________

If he didn’t support abortion ... contradict the authoritative teaching of the Church.
Lionel:
Agreed! And tell me how is this not your position?
LG 16, LG 8 refer to explicit cases for you so you reject VC2. This is heresy.
LG 16, LG 8 refer to implicit cases, not visible in the flesh for me , so it does not reject VC2. I accept the Council.This is not heresy.

The BOD and BOB cases for you all are explicit and so this is a rejection of the dogma EENS. This is heresy.
The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to invisible cases for me and so they are not exceptions to the dogma EENS. I accept EENS and so this is not heresy.

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 assumed that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were exceptions to the dogma EENS. The second part of the Letter contradicted the first part.
The second part of the Letter was heresy.It was Magisterial heresy. I accept the first part of the Letter which affirms the dogma and I reject the second part.

You accept the second part of the Letter ( which is heresy) and claim that you also accept the first part. This is ambiguity.
________________

And this is precisely the method of the post-V2 popes. Welcome to sedevacantism!
Lionel:
And this is precisely the method of the trads and sedes.It is heresy and liberalism.
-Lionel Andrades
 
 

Sedevacantist and Roman bishops and clergy want to remain politically correct

 

 

13 comments:

Introibo Ad Altare Dei said...

I sent you two very long comments with declarations from two popes on BOD without BOW. I gave you the names if three saints in the Roman Martyology that died as catechumens and were saved by BOB. They couldn't have received BOW afterwards or they wouldn't have died AS catechumens! You never even attempted to answer them because you can't. This post was exceptionally pathetic. If V2 is ambiguous then it must be heretical. I'll give you just one question to answer with a simple yes or no:

1. Can a hypothetical statement like, "Christ COULD commit sin" heretical? Yes or No?

For the record I do not know either Fr. Cekada or Bps. Dolan and Sanborn. My teacher was the late, great Fr. Gommar DePauw, JCD. He started the Catholic Traditionalist Movement in 1964 when the heretical council was still going on! He was a peritus (theological expert) who fought alongside Cardinal Ottavianni against the Modernists. He was a canonist and professor for the Archdiocese of Baltimore. Much more erudite than the others. His take on Fenneyites? " A bunch of idiots who can't / don't understand Church teaching, and had better stop calling themselves Catholics until they repent."

Catholic Mission said...

Anonymous Introibo Ad Altare Dei said...
I sent you two very long comments with declarations from two popes on BOD without BOW.
Lionel:
You sent me two declarations on the baptism of desire (BOD). You infer it is without the baptism of water(BOW).
The text does not state it. How could the popes know of any case of BOD without the BOW? How could they know of an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus)
_____________________

I gave you the names if three saints in the Roman Martyology that died as catechumens and were saved by BOB.
Lionel:
O.K. Agreeable. BOB with the baptism of water in a manner known only to God.
______________________

They couldn't have received BOW afterwards or they wouldn't have died AS catechumens!
Lionel:
Who on earth (literally and figuratively) could know of such a case.
Also do we know of any catechumen who was saved with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water?
Did they have a special charism in the Archdiocese of Baltimore or where you live?
_______________________

You never even attempted to answer them because you can't. This post was exceptionally pathetic. If V2 is ambiguous then it must be heretical.
Lionel:
Yes Vatican Council II is ambigous for you because LG 16 etc is visible and known.So with this premise the inference is non traditional and heretical.
The fault is not with VC2 since for me LG 16 is invisible and unknown. So I do not use an irrational premise. Vatican Council II is not ambigous. It is traditional. Since it then affirms the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the old ecclesiology.
________________________


I'll give you just one question to answer with a simple yes or no:

1. Can a hypothetical statement like, "Christ COULD commit sin" heretical? Yes or No?
Lionel:
No Christ could not commit sin.
And what do you mean by hypothetical statement? Do you know of this case in real life, de facto?
___________________

Catholic Mission said...


CONTINUED
For the record I do not know either Fr. Cekada or Bps. Dolan and Sanborn.
Lionel:
Thanks for telling me after four months and numerous conversations. You were defending them on Twitter and were also a part of a group of sedes supporting them on Twitter. Did they call you and asked to be disowned since they cannot answer these questions?.
Now all of a sudden you don't know them.
I did not expect them to respond to the issues I raised.
They are prudent and politically- wise like the bishops here in Rome, the Novus Ordo clergy whom they call modernists.
___________________


My teacher was the late, great Fr. Gommar DePauw, JCD. He started the Catholic Traditionalist Movement in 1964 when the heretical council was still going on! He was a peritus (theological expert) who fought alongside Cardinal Ottavianni against the Modernists.
Lionel:
Cardinal Ottaviani was a Cushingite.
He interpreted the dogma EENS with exceptions.
He would also have interpreted Vatican Council II (LG 16) as a break with the past.
______________________
He was a canonist and professor for the Archdiocese of Baltimore.
Lionel:
The Baltimore Catechism like you infers that BOD and BOB cases are explicit.
_______________________

Much more erudite than the others. His take on Fenneyites? " A bunch of idiots who can't / don't understand Church teaching, and had better stop calling themselves Catholics until they repent."
Lionel:
The Archdiocese of Baltimore even today is Cushingite. They are the same as the sedevacantists whom you now disown suddenly.
Cushingism is heresy.It is an innovation in the Church. It is a new doctrine.


The SSPX must keep rejecting Vatican Council II according to Cushingism.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/04/the-sspx-must-keep-rejecting-vatican.html

Will there be a schism over the Cushingism issue?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/04/will-there-be-schism-over-cushingism.html

Now the error has been identified. Over time people will realize that what Feeney believed in was de fide and it was Cushing and Marchetti who were in heresy
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/04/now-error-has-been-identified-over-time.html

Anonymous said...

If "Christ Could Commit Sin" is heretical, that proves that a hypothetical statement can be heresy. After all, we can't see Christ. We don't know if He committed sin in 2015, we can't see Him. Likewise, we don't need to see the dead to know that disbelief in BOD and BOD without BOW is heresy even if hypothetical

Anonymous said...

The Church said they died AS CATECHUMENS. Therefore, they did not receive baptism but were baptized "in their own blood." That's what the Church clearly teaches. If they had been baptized with water, they would not be classified as catechumens! That's your irrational inference that they were baptized with water but called catechumens!

Anonymous said...

You think that BOD without BOW is an exception to EENS. It is not. To receive BOD alone makes one part of the Church!! That's what the 2 popes decreed.

Introibo Ad Altare Dei said...

My identity is unknown so how could Fr. Cekada call me? I'm writing a blog post about you for Monday. Look for it. Let the world see how ridiculous, uneducated, and heretical you are; which is why I and the other Traditionalists think you're a sad irrational joke.

Introibo Ad Altare Dei said...

As you're not too bright; I'll ask the question again since you didn't answer. Is the statement, "Christ COULD commit sin" heretical? Yes or no.

Catholic Mission said...

It's answered earlier.


I'll give you just one question to answer with a simple yes or no:

1. Can a hypothetical statement like, "Christ COULD commit sin" heretical? Yes or No?
Lionel:
No Christ could not commit sin.
And what do you mean by hypothetical statement? Do you know of this case in real life, de facto?
___________________

Catholic Mission said...

Anonymous said...
If "Christ Could Commit Sin" is heretical, that proves that a hypothetical statement can be heresy.
Lionel:
Yes it would be heresy.

After all, we can't see Christ. We don't know if He committed sin in 2015, we can't see Him.
Lionel:
True it would be heresy since it would be contrary to the Faith.Irrespective if we can see or not see Jesus in person in 2015.
___________________


Likewise, we don't need to see the dead to know that disbelief in BOD and BOD without BOW is heresy even if hypothetical.
Lionel:
We do not need to see the dead to believe in the teaching on BOD and BOB. So I have said that in faith I accept them. In principle I accept them. Theoretically they are possibilities.
________________

And since they are only theoretical cases accepted in faith ( and here is the difference with your Christ did not sin analogy) they are not exceptions to all needing the baptism of water in 2015 for salvation, they are not relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which says all need to enter the Church formally.They are not formal baptisms like the baptism of water which is visible and repeatable and can be given out, unlike BOD and BOB.

This was the mistake with the Baltimore Catechism. If they only mentioned BOD and BOB and left it at that it would be fine.It would be acceptable.
Instead they said that it was a baptism like the baptism of water and they placed BOD and BOB in the section on the baptism of water.
They implied that there was a connection betwen BOD and BOB and the Baptism of water and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This was wrong.
There was no historical precedent for this action. Since BOD and BOB cases are not known, they are not objective in personal cases and no Church document before 1808 makes this irrational claim.
The saints mention BOD and BOB but do not state that these cases are explicit or known baptisms like the baptism of water.This has to be wrongly inferred and most people make the inference.

Catholic Mission said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
The Church said they died AS CATECHUMENS. Therefore, they did not receive baptism but were baptized "in their own blood." That's what the Church clearly teaches. If they had been baptized with water, they would not be classified as catechumens! That's your irrational inference that they were baptized with water but called catechumens!

Lionel:
We are referring to unknown, hypothetical cases here.
We do not know who is the Catechumen who is in Heaven without the baptism of water.
The traditionalists speculate that St. Emerentina is in Heaven without the baptism of water. But none of them can say for sure.
If it was included in the martyrology or liturgy as such, it was obvious that the Church does not say that there was some person, who included this information about the saint, was able to see her in Heaven or had some special charism or this is declared as an infallible teaching.
It still remains speculation since we humans cannot know who is in Heaven without the baptism of water.Practically it is not possible.There is no known salvation outside the Church.

Catholic Mission said...

Anonymous Introibo Ad Altare Dei said...
My identity is unknown so how could Fr. Cekada call me? I'm writing a blog post about you for Monday. Look for it. Let the world see how ridiculous, uneducated, and heretical you are; which is why I and the other Traditionalists think you're a sad irrational joke.
Lionel:
It has been four months since we have been discussing this issue.
Numerous times I have mentioned Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Cekada and you have not denied it.
I have also been sending them messages at their Twitter account and the e-mail addresses.
You were also part of a group of young people who identified yourself as sedevantists.Others have sent you tweets as a sedevacantist at @Ad Altare Dei.
So Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Cekada and Fr. Kramer do not want to answer these questions, since it would mean Vatican Council II does not change the old ecclesiology if LG 16 is invisible instead of visible.They also remain politically correct as Cushingites.
They would have to change their religious formation completely at the Most Holy Trinity seminary Florida and this is something very difficult for them. I understand.
So they would pretend that they had nothing to do with these discussions of ours while they will not comment directly even to the messages sent directly to them.
You also do not feel obligated to get a comment from them, since this is a Faith issue. It is regarding the teachings of the Catholic Church. It is about what they teach in ecclesiology at the seminary.
Instead now after four months you are saying you have nothing to do with them when you and your group would flood me with tweets at one point trying to defend them.

Catholic Mission said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
You think that BOD without BOW is an exception to EENS. It is not. To receive BOD alone makes one part of the Church!! That's what the 2 popes decreed.
Lionel:
This is a theoretical opinion.
The Church in the 1949 Letter to the Archbishop of Boston considered BOD and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma.
The first part of the Letter affirmed 'the dogma', the 'infallible teaching'.The text of the dogma does not mention BOD, BOB or I.I.
The second part of the Letter suggests BOD etc are exceptions to 'the dogma'. So the Letter contradicts itself.
This second part, which is Cushingism, is a magisterial error.It is not only a new doctrine but is also a factual error. Since there cannot be any known case of someone saved without the baptism of water. This would suggest that we can see or know persons now in Heaven saved without the baptism of water.It is a fact of life, that we cannot.

So when you say to accept BOD and BOB makes one part of the Church, fine. BOD and BOB are acceptable.
The problem begins only when these invisible cases are considered visible and when it is postulated that these 'visible' cases are exceptions to EENS and all needing the baptism of water for salvation.
BOD and BOB in itself is not an issue. BOB and BOD relative to EENS as an exception is irrational.