Monday, November 2, 2015

Sedevacantists do not realize that the baptism of desire will always be invisible for us. This is not a theory of mine. It is a fact of life.

Over four months have passed and the sedevacantists  have not been able to answer two questions I mentioned in a previous post.1 There is no response from Fr. Paul Kramer . Nor have Bishop Donald Sanborn or Fr. Cekada answered two questions on Catholic doctrine. Neither has there been any answer to these two simple questions on the Faith, from the sedevacantist blog owner of Introibo Ad Altare Dei(IAAD). IAAD is not even posting comments and allowing be to defend myself(Beware The Bizarre)2  .He  called me for a discussion on Twitter and then removed the entire discussion. His group of sedes on Twitter,associated  with the Most Holy Trinity Monastery Fl., did the same.May be someone told them to do this.
Fr. Nicholás Depósito Even Fr. Deposito, who is on the faculty of this sedevantist seminary, instead of answering as a priest, has blocked me on Twitter.
Similarly another sede priest on Twitter, who writes under the name Montinski, is perhaps also protecting his reputation and position with the sede community.So he  will not admit that their theology is based on an irrationality. There is no doctrinal basis for a sedevacantism based on Vatican Council II.
It is only because they consider LG 16 explicit, that Vatican Council II becomes a break with the strict interpretation of the dogma  EENS. This is the same irrationality of the liberals whom they otherwise criticise.
So when I ask them if LG 16 refers to cases visible or invisible for us they do not answer.
IAAD originally said they are not invisible for us.This is commone sense. Then perhaps under pressure from others he began saying they are not invisible for us. In other words people in Heaven, who have died and are now there without faith and baptism, for him are visible on earth ! It is a fact of life that they are not visible for us. This is not some theory of theology of mine!
Then when I ask them if LG 16 does not refer to explicit cases in our reality, it is not an exception to all needing to formally enter the Church, it is not an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus? No answer.
Since they know the answer and if they answer truthfully, then Vatican Council II could not be opposed to the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS. They would have to admit that they were wrong about Fr. Leonard Feeney all these years. They were also wrong doctrinally on Vatican Council II. They were using an irrationality to interpret the Council.
I made a copy of the original comment which I posted to IAAD and which he refuses to post along side his ad hominem charges.Here it is:
COMMENT NOT POSTED BY IAAD
1.
IAAD:
but he denies Baptism of Desire (BOD) and Baptism of Blood (BOB) as being sufficient for Church membership and salvation without Baptism with water.
Lionel :
So many times I have repeated on my blog and Twitter in our discussions that I do not deny the baptism of desire or blood as being sufficient for Church membership. Firstly they are iinvisible for all of us and so we can ONLY accept them as being hypothetical cases known only to God. Secondly they would have to be followed by the baptism of water since this is the dogmatic teaching i.e extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
There is no dogma which says we have to accept the baptism of desire and blood without the baptism of water and Catholic Faith. However there is a dogma which says all need the baptism of water with no exceptions for salvation.
2.
Lionel:
That is not my picture and photo which does not have a caption which you have put above.
3.
Lionel:
I accept the traditional teachings of the Church and also Vatican Council II in agreement with Tradition, especially the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors.I attend the Traditional Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass.I am not a sedevacantist.

4.
IAAD:
He attempts to salvage both Vatican II and Fennyism by making a distinction between "visible/invisible" and "implicit/explicit."
Lionel:
I do not make the distinction. The distinction is already there.
For example the baptism of desire will also be invisible for us. This is not a theory of mine. It is a fact of life.Similarly if someone is saved in invincible ignorance it would be known only to God and would not be seen or known to us.This is a fact of life.
So it is a fact that these are invisible cases.So invisible cases cannot be exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church, all needing 'faith and baptism'(Ad gentes 7) for salvation.

5.
IAAD:
He even makes obviously historically inaccurate remarks, such as BOD and BOB without being followed by Baptism with water started with the Baltimore Catechism in the 19th century. (I guess he never read St. Thomas Aquinas expounding on the subject written in the 13th century; and I can go back much farther.).
Lionel:
Good point I am glad you mentioned it.
The Baltimore Catechism places being saved with the baptism of desire and blood along side being saved with the baptism of water and the necessity of the baptism of water. This catechism implies that these cases are exceptions i.e every one needs the baptism of water except...
This was the mistake in the Baltimore Catechism. Since these cases are not exceptions. They cannot be seen or known, they are not part of our realilty, we cannot give these 'baptisms' to any one.
While St. Thomas Aquinas said that all need the baptism of water for salvation. All need to formally enter the Church to avoid Hell.He did not mention any exceptions.
The man in the forest in invincible ignorance to whom he referred to, he said would be saved when God would send a preacher to him. He would be taught the faith and be baptised, So when he is in Heaven he would be a Catholic.
After 1808 and 1949 (Boston Case) liberal theologians began interpreting St. Thomas Aquinas as saying the man in the forest would be saved without the baptism of water. This is contrary to the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas.
CONTINUED











_______________________
-Lionel Andrades

1

Sedevacantists after months of discussions cannot answer if Lumen Gentium 16 is explicit or implicit and if it is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/10/message-incomplete-four-months-have.html

Cardinal Ottaviani did not know

http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.it/2015/10/beware-bizarre.html#comment-form


2
http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.it/2015/10/beware-bizarre.html#comment-form

No comments: