Tuesday, November 10, 2015

Sedevacantist will still not answer if Lumen Gentium 16 also refers to a visible for us case in 2015

The blogger at Introibo Ad Altare Dei (IAAD) has responded to the last post which I have sent him.He has posted it in the comments section of his blog post The Laver of Regeneration. His reply his full of confusion and he still has not understood the basic point I was trying to make. It was that the baptism of desire and blood could not be relevant to the dogma since they do not and cannot exist in our reality.So whenever any one, he included, implies they are relevant to the dogma, they are inferring that they can see and know people who are now in Heaven.This is ridiculous. Yet they are not aware of the strange inference they make.
In this correspondence it was good of IAAD to agree with the obvious : that the baptism of desire cases are not visible to us on earth.It must have been difficult for him, for whatever reason. However he still will not answer if Lumen Gentium 16 also refers to a visible for us case in 2015.The answer is obvious but I could not find it in the complicated response I re-produce here from the comments section of his blog.
I am going through wade though his answer.-L.A


The Catechism(1992) assumes BOD and BOB are explicit : this is the mistake in Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) and the Letter of the Holy Office

  •  Introibo Ad Altare DeiNovember 9, 2015
  • To my readers,
  • I'm keeping this in these comments as promised! But Lionel Andrades gave me the answers I knew he would, thereby proving me correct beyond any doubt! I will respond to his post linked in the comment above.

    1. Lionel:
      Good.Good so we agree that BOD cases are invisible.

      Introibo: Yes, we do.

      Lionel: There is confusion here.
      The baptism of water is always visible for us. We can give it to someone we can repeat it. This is not possible with BOD(Baptism of Desire).

      Introibo: In no way does that prove it was valid, or that it excludes God using BOD/BOB. The minister could have a defective intention as described above in my post.Lionel: I not talking about it being valid or not. I am saying they are not visible.That's all.

    2. Lionel: However the issue is : are there exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, is BOD an exception? Is BOD relevant to EENS? Does everyone need to be a formal member of the Church this year or can there be an exception? Was St. Emerentiana an exception to EENS or was she irrelevant?

      Introibo: You're the one who's confused. You think EENS=Baptism by water (BOW). It does not. You can enter the Church by BOD and BOB without BOW. That's why BOD/BOB are indeed irrelevant to EENS because all Traditionalists agree with the dogma that only Catholics (those within the Church) can go to Heaven.
    Lionel: I am saying that these cases are not visible and he has picked upon another point.
    1.  The real issue is "How can Church membership be obtained?" The answer is under ordinary circumstances by faith and baptism (of water), under extraordinary conditions by faith and baptism of desire or blood. Feeneyites deny that membership in the Church is obtained by any way other than BOW and that is why you (wrongly and heretically) consider BOD and BOB as "exceptions" to BOW. They are not when you understand the dogma of EENS (which you do not). So St. Emerentiana is not and could not be an exception to EENS. She is only an exception to BOW. She has nothing to do with the dogma of EENS, properly understood. Lionel: He now wants to discuss how can membership be obtained which is another subject.
    1. Lionel: No contempory pope has seen the dead in Heaven.In faith we know the saints are in Heaven.

    2. Introibo: Good! We agree it is BY FAITH IN THE DECREES OF THE CHURCH we know who are saints in Heaven. Lionel:But he still missses the point.The popes cannot see the saints in Heaven today (2015) just as much as we cannot see baptism of desire cases in Heaven today.

    3. Lionel: There is confusion here.We accept EENS and the baptism of water in faith, as part of the Catholic Faith. We believe they are the teachings of God for the Catholic Church. This is a truth which God wants us to follow.

      Introibo: The confusion is on your end, for the same Church that declares EENS infallibly ALSO declares BOD/BOW as part of that same infallible Catholic Faith. The problem with you Feeneyites is that you do not?will not submit to the authority of that Church, as I will prove below.Lionel: When I mention that EENS is infallible I mean that it is an infallible teaching, according to the text of the dogma, which says all need explicit baptism of water for salvation. The text of the dogma does not say there  explicit cases of BOD and BOW which could be exceptions.It does not even refer to the BOW or BOD with reference to EENS. I am not discussing EENS as a faith-issue.I am saying that the Church teaches in the dogma that every one needs the baptism of water and there are no visible exceptions on earth in 2015.
      Lionel: IAAD and I now also agree that BOD and BOB refer to invisible cases.For me they are not relevant or exceptions to EENS and the necessity of the Baptism of water for all with no exceptions.This is the infallible teachings of the Catholic Church.

      Introibo: We agree BOD cases are "invisible" (unknown), however, we disagree about BOB cases. We know by the teaching of the Church that St Emerantiana and St Victor DIED AS CATECHUMENS.

    Lionel: So these cases are visible for him . So they become relevant and an exception to EENS!

    1. Catechumens are unbaptized by definition, yet in Her liturgy the Church declared they were "baptized in their own blood." The Church is infallible in Her liturgy--you deny this. The Holy Ghost knows who is in Heaven and would not allow His Church to err, other wise we could never be certain of what to believe and the "gates of Hell" would prevail! Lionel: He is mixing up the explicit-implicit, objective-subjective, visible-invisible distinction which is part of rational thinking and an aspect of philosophy. Those " baptised in their blood" ( with or without water for him)  are explicit only for God and are implicit for us. They are theoretical cases for us. They are visible to God only if they exist and they are always invisible for IAAD.So they are not relevant to the dogma EENS.If the Church in her liturgy claims that St. Emerentiana is in Heaven without the baptism of water, then who on earth was the first person to make this claim and how would he know ?How could he see the saint in Heaven without the baptism of water?There was no explicit case for him and this was a subjective decision, a speculation ?

      I agree that they are not relevant to EENS as I just explained. Lionel: He has not said that these cases are invisible and so are irrelevant to EENS. He is referring to some personal theology  which is supported by other sedevacantists.
    2. The Church does not infallibly teach BOW is the only way to obtain Church membership. I also agree that we must convert all we can by BOW because we cannot depend on a miracle of Grace (BOD/BOB) to save someone.
      Likewise the ordinary means of sustaining life is to eat. God could allow someone to survive only on the Eucharist, like some saints did. However, I will not stop eating, or contributing to feed the poor depending on a miracle from God. So we must carry out The Great Commission.
      Lionel:This is not the point being discussed. He cannot still say that BOD and BOB cases now in Heaven are invisible for us and so they are not relevant to the dogma EENS ( Continued in the next blog post) -Lionel Andrades

  • The Catechism(1992) assumes BOD and BOB are explicit : this is the mistake in Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) and the Letter of the Holy Office

    1. P.s excuse the numbers on the left hand side, I  am unable to remove them.