Friday, October 9, 2015

Bp. Sanborn and Fr. Cekada have been informed. They are not in ignorance.Why must they make the same error as Archbishop Lefebvre and Cardinal Ratzinger?

Immagine correlata

Comments from Sedevacantist community in Florida still remaing in hiding like diocesan priests in Rome and do not answer questions on the Faith http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/10/sedevacantist-community-in-florida.html

AnonymousIntroibo Ad Altare Dei said...
Here are your points answered:

1. The entire issue has nothing to do with EENS and everything to do with HOW membership in the Church is obtained. You can receive BOW OR BOB (without BOW) OR BOD (without BOW). The Feeneyites will admit ONLY BOW (or they fancy BOW must follow BOB or BOD; which is not true because BOB and BOD are sufficient in and of themselves). BOB and BOD have been taught by the Church since the beginning. To deny them as sufficient for Church membership is a mortal sin against the Faith. It is heresy. See http://www.romancatholicism.org/bod-quotes.html

2. You are obsess with "exceptions." You don't understand the problem which is why you can't comprehend the answer. To deny BOD as sufficient in and of itself is heretical. If someone said hypothetically, "Christ could commit sin" it is not an exception to his sinlessness since we can't see Him commit sin nor do we know of any sin He committed. We can't see Him in Heaven.WRONG! It is heresy because it says IT IS POSSIBLE. The hypothesis alone is enough to bring the censure of heresy. Christ, Who is God, cannot commit sin, and whether there are actual cases or not, does not matter. Likewise, to deny the efficacy of BOD without BOW is heresy even if only hypothetical. It doesn't matter that we can't see the dead, etc. The hypothesis alone is enough to be guilty of heresy.

3. They are in mortal sin. He is not wrong. LG 16 is an heretical hypothesis as explained above.
October 8, 2015 at 1:39 PM
Delete

 Immagine correlata
Here are your points answered:

1. The entire issue has nothing to do with EENS and everything to do with HOW membership in the Church is obtained. You can receive BOW OR BOB (without BOW) OR BOD (without BOW).

Lionel:
So are you saying that BOD with or without the baptism of water is invisible for us and so is not an exception to the dogma EENS? Is Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Cekada actually saying this ?

__________________

The Feeneyites will admit ONLY BOW (or they fancy BOW must follow BOB or BOD; which is not true because BOB and BOD are sufficient in and of themselves).
Lionel:
It is a dogma of the church that all need the baptism of water for salvation.
It is not a dogma of the Church that BOD is sufficient and must exclude the baptism of water.
Anyway these cases are hypothetical.You and Bishop Sanborn do not know of any specific case. So how can you assume in principle that there are persons saved as such or going to be saved as such when you do not know and cannot know of any specific case?. How can you make a theoretical rule when no one in Church in history could know of any case?

__________________

BOB and BOD have been taught by the Church since the beginning.
Lionel:
I repeat BOB and BOD is not an issue. But at issue is whether these cases are invisible or visible. You provided a whole list of BOD cases and I mentioned that not a single one states that they are explicit and so an exception to the dogma.So Fr.Cekada cannot cite them as a reference. They are not exceptions or relevant to the Feeeneyite version of EENS.
Not a single of the BOD references cited claim that BOD is explicit,objective and visible to us humans. Yet this is what is implied by Fr. Cekada in his article.He has done all his research on this subject assuming BOD is explicit. Then he condemns the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary for not accepting explicit BOD as an excedption to the dogma. He even ludicrously calls it a mortal sin.
So I have to keep asking you again and again is BOD explicit or implicit, visible or invisible and not one of you from the community at Florida will respond.
You still have not answered is LG 16 explicit or implicit ?

______________________________________

To deny them as sufficient for Church membership is a mortal sin against the Faith. It is heresy.
Lionel:
BOD and BOB does not have to be denied since for me they are always invisible and theoretical they are not exceptions to the dogma EENS. They are irrelevant to the dogma.
However it is heresy to say that they are explicit and then imply that they are exceptions to EENS and to the Nicene Creed which says I believe in one baptism for the forgivessness of sin and not three known baptisms.

_______________________

See http://www.romancatholicism.org/bod-quotes.html
Delete
Immagine correlata

2. You are obsess with "exceptions."
Lionel:
When Fr. Cekada says the community of Fr. Leonard Feeney must accept BOD without the baptism of water he is referring to an exception.So I have to respond.
He implies that there is a known case of someone saved with the baptism of desire in the present times ( 2015). It would have to be in the present times to be relevent to EENS. Then he assumes that this 'explicit' case is there in Heaven without the baptism of water. So he wants the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary to accept this fantasy. His reasoning is based on an irrational premise and inference.
You support all this !

__________________________

You don't understand the problem which is why you can't comprehend the answer. To deny BOD as sufficient in and of itself is heretical.
Lionel:
When you refer to BOD specify if it is expliict BOD or implicit BOD you are referring to.
To suggest BOD is explicit is nonsense. Common sense tells us BOD cases are in Heaven and so they cannot be explicit on earth.
Numerous times I have mentioned this point but you have not answered it. This is a common sense question.Can you see the dead-saved now in Heaven with BOD? Is LG 16 an exception to EENS?

________________

If someone said hypothetically, "Christ could commit sin" it is not an exception to his sinlessness since we can't see Him commit sin nor do we know of any sin He committed. We can't see Him in Heaven.WRONG! It is heresy because it says IT IS POSSIBLE. The hypothesis alone is enough to bring the censure of heresy. Christ, Who is God, cannot commit sin, and whether there are actual cases or not, does not matter.
Lionel:
No one is making this claim
However Fr. Cekada says it is a mortal sin for the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary since they do not accept visible in the flesh for us BOD. Does this make sense ?
What if the Sisters said that they accept implicit for us and explicit for God only BOD. What would be his reaction? Would he say, "No! You must accept visible for us BOD otherwise I do not have any case against you".

___________________________________

Likewise, to deny the efficacy of BOD without BOW is heresy even if only hypothetical.
Lionel:
The dogmatic teaching on EENS is de fide.It says all need the baptism of water for salvation. This is not my opinion.
If you claim BOD excludes the baptism of water you are denying the dogma like the liberals. This is heretical for me.It would also be your opinion.
The second important point is, even if it was your opinion, either way, with or without the baptism of water, you are referring to an invisible, non existing case out of our reality.

_____________________

It doesn't matter that we can't see the dead, etc.
Lionel.
It matters when Fr. Cekada assumes BOD is visible, and Bishop Sanborm assumes LG 16 and LG 8 cases refer to explicit people, known people. Since if these cases were not explicit Vatican Council II for them would not be an exception to the old ecclesiology based on EENS.
But it is an exception. So it matters when they infer that they can see the dead.
 

3. They are in mortal sin. He is not wrong. LG 16 is an heretical hypothesis as explained above.
Lionel:
Is LG 16 ( invincible ignorance)a heretical hypothesis when it is explicit or implicit?
Why cannot Fr. Cekada answer this?
For me LG 16 refers to an invisible case and so it  is not an explicit exception to EENS. It is an not an exception to the old ecclesiology based on EENS.So Vatican Council II does not contradict the old ecclesiology. Since there cannot be an explicit exception( LG 16, LG 8 etc).
For Fr. Cekada and the Florida seminary LG 16 and LG 8 refer to explicit cases and so VC2 becomes a break with the old ecclesiology. They condemn VC2 when the fault lies with them not making the correct explicit-implicit distinction.
Like Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Cekada's formation under Archbishop Lefebvre, all three of them innocently have used an irrationality to interpret VC2. So the result is heretical and so they reject VC2.
Archbishop Lefebvre was correct that VC2 was heretical but he did not know that it was because of the invisible-visible distinction. This was not known to the Magisterium too. So they did not help him. Instead they wrongly excommunicated him.
In his mind Vatican Council II was heretical and he was correct.It was heretical with explicit LG 16, LG 8 instead of implicit LG 16 and LG 8.

Bp. Sanborn and Fr. Cekada have been informed. They are not in ignorance.Why must they make the same error as Archbishop Lefebvre and Cardinal Ratzinger?
-Lionel Andrades

2 comments:

Introibo Ad Altare Dei said...

Lionel:
So are you saying that BOD with or without the baptism of water is invisible for us and so is not an exception to the dogma EENS? Is Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Cekada actually saying this ?

Ans. There is no exception to EENS. BOB or BOD without BOW makes you a member of the Church at the moment of death.

Lionel:
It is a dogma of the church that all need the baptism of water for salvation.
It is not a dogma of the Church that BOD is sufficient and must exclude the baptism of water.

Ans. WRONG! A letter of Pope Innocent II to the Bishop of Cremona (1140) reads:

We answer to your question: The presbyter who died without the water of baptism, since he persevered in the faith of Holy Mother Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, we affirm without any doubt that he became free of the original sin and reached the joy of eternal life” (Denzinger n. 388). (Published in Denizinger, these are AUTHORITATIVE TEACHINGS OF THE POPE.

Pope Innocent III in his letter Debitum pastoralis of 1206 states:

You have communicated to us that a certain Jew, at the edge of dying as he was only among Jews, immersed himself in water saying: ‘I baptize myself in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost. Amen.’

We answer saying that the baptizer and the one who receives baptism must be different persons, as we infer from the words of the Lord when, speaking to His Apostles, He said: ‘Go, baptize all nations in the name etc (Matt 28:19). Therefore, the mentioned Jew must be baptized again by another person to show that one is the baptizer and another is the one who receives the baptism. … Nonetheless, if he would have died immediately, he would have flown instantly to the celestial homeland for his faith in the Sacrament rather than for the Sacrament of the Faith (Denzinger n. 413).

The 1917 Code of Canon Law teaches that Catechumens who die without BOW are to be given ecclesiastical burial. The reason? According to canonists Abbo and Hannon "they received Baptism of Desire." The writings of these great canonists are apporved by the Magisterium of the Church.

Lionel: Anyway these cases are hypothetical.You and Bishop Sanborn do not know of any specific case.

Ans. The Roman Martyrology:
“April 12: At Braga in Portugal, the martyr St. Victor, who, although only a catechumen, refused to adore an idol, and confessed Jesus Christ with great constancy. After suffering many torments, he was beheaded, and thus merited to be baptized in his own blood.”

“June 22: At Verulam in England, in the time of Diocletian, St. Alban, martyr, who gave himself up in order to save a cleric whom he had harbored. After being scourged and subjected to bitter torments, he was sentenced to capital punishment. With him also suffered one of the soldiers who led him to execution, for he was converted to Christ on the way and merited to be baptized in his own blood. St. Bede the Venerable has left an account of the noble combat of St. Alban and his companion.”

“June 28: At Alexandria, in the persecution of Severus, the holy martyrs Plutarch, Serenus, Heraclides a catechumen, Heron a neophyte, another Serenus, Rháis a catechumen, Potamioena, and Marcella her mother.”

Here are three known cases. How do we know? Not by "seeing the dead" but on the authority of the Church. How do we know St. Maria Goretti is in Heaven? Did Pope Pius XII see her in Heaven? Did you? She was canonized in 1950. We know she is in Heaven by papal authority, just like St. Victor who was a catechumen. Catechumens are unbaptized by definition. He was placed in the Roman Martyrology by order of the Pope.

Introibo Ad Altare Dei said...



Lionel: I repeat BOB and BOD is not an issue. But at issue is whether these cases are invisible or visible.

Ans. BOD and BOB is exactly the issue. Maria Goretti is invisible to us. We can't see her in Heaven. Do you believe she's there? Why or why not? Certainly, Pope PIus XII never claimed to see the dead when he said we must believe she is in Heaven! So how do we know? Why should we/could we pray to her if we can't see her today in October of 2015? I believe on the authority of the Church which does not need to see the dead! The same authority which teaches BOD and BOB alone suffices for salvation.

Lionel:
The dogmatic teaching on EENS is de fide.It says all need the baptism of water for salvation. This is not my opinion.

Ans. Then your "popes"--JPII, Benedict 16, and Francis are heretics and cannot be popes! They teach something you call "irrational." Benedict had the guidance of the Holy Ghost as "pope" and popes cannot teach error in matters of Faith and morals. This does not only apply to de fide teachings, as Pope Pius IX and Pope Pius XII made clear. Are they irrational or heretical? How can you see the error and these highly educated men guided by the Holy Ghost couldn't see it--indeed can't see it as they still teach it! Francis claims atheists can go to Heaven!! Your own "pope" is against you. How can you be more Catholic than the pope?

Lionel: If you claim BOD excludes the baptism of water you are denying the dogma like the liberals. This is heretical for me.It would also be your opinion.

Ans. I quoted two popes above and the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope Benedict XV in 1917. That's not my opinion. I quoted the Roman Martyrology that claims unbaptized catechumens are baptized in their own blood. If you think they were baptized with water, you contradict the plain meaning of the Martyrology and that is just your opinion. It doesn't say they were baptized with water, does it? How could they die AS A CATECHUMEN if they received BOW before death? They would no longer be a catechumen! This is an illogical inference!


Lionel: The second important point is, even if it was your opinion, either way, with or without the baptism of water, you are referring to an invisible, non existing case out of our reality.

Hypotheticals can be heresy. "Christ COULD commit heresy" is heretical even though it's hypothetical. V2 teaching that Protestant sects can be a means of salvation is heretical (to give but one example), even if we don't know of anyone saved by them. The mere hypothesis is heresy, whether or not it's "known to us" or "invisible"