CONTINUED
Introibo Ad Altare Dei November 9, 2015
Lionel: The baptism of water is always explicit. EENS refers to all needing explicit baptism of water in the present times.If there is an exception the exception would also have to be explicit.
Introibo: We can see people baptized in water, but we don't know if that will ultimately avail them unto salvation.
Lionel: I am referring to the baptism of water being explicit and known and the baptism of desire being invisible and unknown.He is talking about salvation.
We know that St. Victor is in Heaven because of BOB by Faith in the infallible teaching of the Church--the same infallibility I will demonstrate that you deny. If the Church declares someone is in Heaven by BOB that's pretty "explicit" for a Catholic!
Lionel: Who in the Church could see someone in Heaven without the baptism of water? Who is this person in the Church who was gifted with this ability and made an announcement on St. Emerentiana? Does the Church recognise him and his gift ?
Lionel: I believe the Extra ordinary Magisterium is infallible ( ex cathedra).
The ordinary magisterium is subject to human error. To infer BOD is explicit and so an exception to EENS is an error of the ordinary Magisterium.
Introibo: Lionel has, by this statement, proven himself a heretic who denies the Indefectibility of the Church. Furthermore, The First Vatican Council infallibly taught: "...by Divine and Catholic Faith, all those things are to be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in Tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in Her Ordinary and Universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed." (See DENZ. 1792)
Lionel:
It does not say here, specifically, that I have to believe that BOD is explicit and so relevant and an exception to the dogma.
It does not say that three Church Councils which gave us the dogma EENS and did not mention BOD were in heresy....
Lionel:
It does not say here, specifically, that I have to believe that BOD is explicit and so relevant and an exception to the dogma.
It does not say that three Church Councils which gave us the dogma EENS and did not mention BOD were in heresy....
You DENY this infallible teaching and limit the Church's infallibility to ex cathedra teachings. Ironically, you deny THIS infallible ex cathedra teaching!
According to theologian Van Noort:
"The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church. ...But if the Church could make a mistake in the manner alleged when it legislated for the general discipline, it would no longer be either a loyal guardian of revealed doctrine or a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life." (Dogmatic Theology 2:114-115) Therefore all of what the Church legislates with papal approval is infallible; it cannot be evil or in error.
Lionel: Yes before 1808. However an objective error was made by the Magisterium in 1949. This happened when it assumed that BOD etc referred to known cases.So they became relevant and exceptions to the interpretation of the dogma EENS according to Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center.
They were criticised for not saying that BOD etc referred to objective cases for them to relevant, in other words the Magisterium in 1949 wanted Fr. Leonard Feeney to say that he could see and know BOD cases for them to be exceptions to his traditional interpretation of EENS._______________________
They were criticised for not saying that BOD etc referred to objective cases for them to relevant, in other words the Magisterium in 1949 wanted Fr. Leonard Feeney to say that he could see and know BOD cases for them to be exceptions to his traditional interpretation of EENS._______________________
According to theologian Ott: The promulgation by the Church (of dogma)may be made either in an extraordinary manner through a solemn decision of faith made by the Pope or a General Council (Iudicium solemne) or through the ordinary and general teaching power of the Church (Magisterium ordinarium et universale). The latter may be found easily in the catechisms issued by the Bishops." (See Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, TAN reprint from 1955, pg. 4)
Therefore, when the universal and ordinary Magisterium approves the Catechism of Trent (promulgated by St. Pius V) or The Catechism of St. Pius X (promulgated by that same saintly pontiff) teaches BOD and BOB, they are infallibly true. You deny this because you are a Feeneyite heretic.
Lionel:
'teaches BOD and BOB, they are infallibly true'.
Lionel:
'teaches BOD and BOB, they are infallibly true'.
I accept BOD and BOB even though it is not an infallible teaching. The dogma is an infallible teaching.The dogma is de fide.However I make the distinction between explicit and implicit for us BOD and you do not.I accept theoretical BOD as a possibility.I reject BOD as being explicit.You wil not make a comment on this either way.
_______________________
_______________________
Lionel: The catechisms, reflect the Ordinary Magisterium.The human error is there with reference to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This could be the influence of political or other lobbies.
Introibo: So "political or other lobbies" can outsmart or overcome the protective power of the Holy Ghost? Really???
Lionel:
Are you not a sedevacantist who believes the popes and their catechisms and Vatican Council II is in error?
I include Pope Pius XII in this error but you excluded him and consider the other popes in error.The sedes and trads are also making the same error as the popes since Pius XII but they are not aware of it. The error was there in 1808 but it became well known and official in 1949.
__________________
Lionel:
Are you not a sedevacantist who believes the popes and their catechisms and Vatican Council II is in error?
I include Pope Pius XII in this error but you excluded him and consider the other popes in error.The sedes and trads are also making the same error as the popes since Pius XII but they are not aware of it. The error was there in 1808 but it became well known and official in 1949.
__________________
Lionel:For instance the Catechism of the Catholic Church ( 1992) refers to an 'aphorism' outside the Church there is no salvation.It does not refer to a dogma(CCC 846). The Catechism(1992) does not cite the text of the dogma defined by three Church Councils. Instead it implies that BOD and BOB are relevant as an 'aphorism'.
Introibo: This, dear Lionel, is EXACTLY why I'm a sedevacantist.
Lionel:
I am not a sedevacantist since this specific error can be corrected.
Lionel:
I am not a sedevacantist since this specific error can be corrected.
Major premise: The Church cannot teach error.
Lionel:
The Holy Spirit cannot teach error. We humans can.
Lionel:
The Holy Spirit cannot teach error. We humans can.
Minor premise: The Vatican II sect Catechism teaches numerous errors.
Lionel: The major one is shared by the sedes and trads.It can be re-interpreted and avoided in future. The present inference is irrational. We can avoid this inference.The same text then becomes rational.
Lionel: The major one is shared by the sedes and trads.It can be re-interpreted and avoided in future. The present inference is irrational. We can avoid this inference.The same text then becomes rational.
Conclusion: The 1992 catechism did NOT come from the Catholic Church but from men who lost their office through the profession of heresy as the Church has always taught.
Lionel:
The traditional teachings in the Catechism ( 1992) are also those of the Council of Trent. They are inspired teachings.
There is one oversight which has come from human error and the sedes and trads are still not aware of it. The SSPX is still not aware of it.
Lionel:
The traditional teachings in the Catechism ( 1992) are also those of the Council of Trent. They are inspired teachings.
There is one oversight which has come from human error and the sedes and trads are still not aware of it. The SSPX is still not aware of it.
I'm a catholic. You are a member of the Vatican II sect.
Lionel:
This is your opinion. I am a Catholic and you and 'the Vatican II Sect'( Magisterium/ liberals) are making the same error.
Lionel:
This is your opinion. I am a Catholic and you and 'the Vatican II Sect'( Magisterium/ liberals) are making the same error.
Lionel: Lionel Andrades is affirming the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church in harmony with Vatican Council II. This is a Vatican Council II interpreted without an irrational premise and inference.For him there is no pre and post Vatican Council II conflict. There is no change in the ecclesiology of the Church before and after Vatican Council II.There are no new doctrines proposed. There is no new innovation accepted.So where is the irrationality and heresy?
Here is the irrationality and heresy:
You claim to believe ex cathedra teaching, yet deny the ex cathedra teaching of the First Vatican Council which affirms the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium.Lionel:
The infallible teaching did not mention any exceptions. It did not mention BOD. Check the text of Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441.
The infallible teaching did not mention any exceptions. It did not mention BOD. Check the text of Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441.
You claim a heretic can be pope and catechisms promulgated by the pope can teach error.
Lionel:
This was the heresy and error during the pontificate of Pius XII. You accept this pontificate and the error.While you reject the popes who follow, not realizing that they are making the same error as Pius XII.
________________
Lionel:
This was the heresy and error during the pontificate of Pius XII. You accept this pontificate and the error.While you reject the popes who follow, not realizing that they are making the same error as Pius XII.
________________
Please cite ONE pre-vatican II council, theologian, or papal decree that teaches these errors.
Lionel:
I have mentioned in these blog posts many times, and also in our discussion, that the error came into the Church in 1808 with the Baltimore Catechism it was enforced in 1949 at Boston and then included in Vatican Council II (AG 7 etc)
Lionel:
I have mentioned in these blog posts many times, and also in our discussion, that the error came into the Church in 1808 with the Baltimore Catechism it was enforced in 1949 at Boston and then included in Vatican Council II (AG 7 etc)
You can't. You never cite to any authority because Lionel Andrades, like Leonard Feeney are their own authority unto themselves.
Lionel:
I have cited specific references.
Lionel:
I have cited specific references.
Lionel: Pope Francis is still the pope, for me.
Introibo: And that is why you are outside the Church--like him.
Lionel:
I follow the traditional teachings of the Church which do not change with the popes. I follow the pre-1808 Magisterium and reject the errors of the post 1808 Magisterium on salvation,specifically, the dogma on salvation. You accept the 1949 error of the Magisterium of Pope Pius XII and consider him within the Church, and the popes who follow, for you as a sede, are outside the Church.When really you are not aware of the irrationality you are using in the intepretation of magisterial documents.
In objective reality he cannot be pope, as he is a heretic, like you.
Lionel:
He is in heresy due to a common oversight on doctrine.You are making the same mistake. I too, at one time made the same mistake.I am referring specifically to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.If he teaches something new, or heresy on another subject I do not have to accept it or teach it.
What's the point of having a pope who teaches all kinds of things and you never know what's true or not unless ex cathedra. Frankie will tell you that proselytism is nonsense and atheists can go to Heaven.
Lionel:
I understand what you feel. However inspite of the errors and confusion I choose to accept Pope Francis as pope.
YOU pick and choose what to accept and reject just like the pseudo-traditionalists SSPX.
Lionel:
Is it not the same as the SSPX for you when LG 16 is explicit and visible for you? Is not St. Emerentiana an explicit exception to the dogma EENS in 2015 for you? Why do you keep mentioning her ?
Please convert my friend.
Lionel:
Doctrinally I am not teaching anything new. I am following Tradition. Doctrinally you are mixing up what is implicit as being implict. With the visible-invisible confusion you have accepted the new doctrine on salvation.It is suported by the liberals and the Vatican Curia. The result is : an irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II.The Vatican Curia accepts it and you reject it .
Due to this irrational interpretation of the Council,you have gone into sedevacantism.
For me the Council is not a break with the past, so this is not a reason for me to be a sede.
I hope all this typing has not been in vain! I'll be praying for your conversion.
Lionel:
It will be helpful in this dialogue if you would let us know if LG 16 is explicit or implicit and if it is ( or can be) an explicit exception, to the dogma EENS. Is it relevant to EENS or did the Magisterium in 1949 make an objective mistake?
-Lionel Andrades
Sedevacantist will still not answer if Lumen Gentium 16 also refers to a visible for us case in 2015
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/11/sedevacantist-will-still-not-answer-if.html
Lionel:
I follow the traditional teachings of the Church which do not change with the popes. I follow the pre-1808 Magisterium and reject the errors of the post 1808 Magisterium on salvation,specifically, the dogma on salvation. You accept the 1949 error of the Magisterium of Pope Pius XII and consider him within the Church, and the popes who follow, for you as a sede, are outside the Church.When really you are not aware of the irrationality you are using in the intepretation of magisterial documents.
In objective reality he cannot be pope, as he is a heretic, like you.
Lionel:
He is in heresy due to a common oversight on doctrine.You are making the same mistake. I too, at one time made the same mistake.I am referring specifically to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.If he teaches something new, or heresy on another subject I do not have to accept it or teach it.
What's the point of having a pope who teaches all kinds of things and you never know what's true or not unless ex cathedra. Frankie will tell you that proselytism is nonsense and atheists can go to Heaven.
Lionel:
I understand what you feel. However inspite of the errors and confusion I choose to accept Pope Francis as pope.
YOU pick and choose what to accept and reject just like the pseudo-traditionalists SSPX.
Lionel:
Is it not the same as the SSPX for you when LG 16 is explicit and visible for you? Is not St. Emerentiana an explicit exception to the dogma EENS in 2015 for you? Why do you keep mentioning her ?
Please convert my friend.
Lionel:
Doctrinally I am not teaching anything new. I am following Tradition. Doctrinally you are mixing up what is implicit as being implict. With the visible-invisible confusion you have accepted the new doctrine on salvation.It is suported by the liberals and the Vatican Curia. The result is : an irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II.The Vatican Curia accepts it and you reject it .
Due to this irrational interpretation of the Council,you have gone into sedevacantism.
For me the Council is not a break with the past, so this is not a reason for me to be a sede.
I hope all this typing has not been in vain! I'll be praying for your conversion.
Lionel:
It will be helpful in this dialogue if you would let us know if LG 16 is explicit or implicit and if it is ( or can be) an explicit exception, to the dogma EENS. Is it relevant to EENS or did the Magisterium in 1949 make an objective mistake?
-Lionel Andrades
Sedevacantist will still not answer if Lumen Gentium 16 also refers to a visible for us case in 2015
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/11/sedevacantist-will-still-not-answer-if.html
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment