Monday, November 16, 2015

Sedevacantists are offering/attending the Traditional Latin Mass with heresy an impediment, a sin.

The sedevacantist position is heretical and they are unable to defend themself  I mentioned in a previous blog post 1.IAAD has read the citation.He has  posted an addendum in the comments section of his blogpost titled 'A "Laver of Regeneration" No More'. 2   He has not addressed a single point of that citation. Not a single point and there is no help coming from Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Cekada or the faculty of the MHTS. He does not even acknowledge that the sedevacantists deny the Catholic Faith, they deny traditional church doctrine by using the same irrationality as the liberals. The conclusion is heretical.
Here is the citation which the blog owner of Introibo Ad Altare Dei (IAAD) will not comment upon in his latest comment(Victory Addendum).

'A sedevacantist is saying I am outside the Church when I affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, hypothetical and invisible for us baptism of desire and baptism of blood and a Vatican Council II in which LG 16 etc refer to invisible and not visible cases ? Which teaching have I rejected? You instead reject Vatican Council and invisible for us and known only to God BOD and BOB.For you BOD and BOB are explicit and so you reject the defined dogma EENS. So this is also a rejection of the dogma on the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra.You have also changed the Nicene Creed with one baptism replaced by three, this is a first class heresy.' 1
I reproduce the  rest of the report here with comments.
For IAAD, Bishop Donald Salborn, Fr. Anthony Cekada and the faculty and seminarians at the sedevacantist Most Holy Trinity Seminary(MHTS) Fl.,USA this is their heretical position( which follows). It all develops from a small irrationality. It shows that Catholic doctrine is like mathematics. It has a precision of its own.One small violation and the equation goes wrong.
For the sedevacantist the baptism of desire (BOD) and blood (BOB) , and being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I), refer to personally known, objective cases in the present times and they exclude the baptism of water. Here is where the basic problem lies, here is where the equation goes off.
(Lionel : Probably IAAD does not understand what I have said above.)
1. Since there is visible instead invisible for us, BOD, BOB and I.I they have an alleged explicit exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). They reject the centuries old interpretation of EENS which does not mention any exceptions nor claims BOD, BOB or I.I as being relevant to EENS.Instead the text of the dogma accentuates the absence of exceptions. EENS is a defined dogma and the sedevacantists have changed its meaning not aware of the error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.This is heresy.
(No comment here also from him .I accept EENS and I also accept the first part of the Letter of the Holy Office which supports traditional EENS. I reject the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office which suggests BOD, BOB etc are exceptions to EENS, in other words they are explicit.
This is probably still new material for IAAD. He  has not understood what I am saying). 
2.This is also a rejection of the dogma on the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra. Three Church Councils defined EENS ex cathedra.
 (He cannot deny that they reject traditional EENS with BOD, BOB and I.I being exceptions, in other words explicit.They also cite St. Victor  as if a case in the past can be relevant to the dogma in our present times (2015). Similalry they cite St. Emerentiana, as if someone in the past went to Heaven without the baptism of water and this was known to human beings on earth.
The message of the sedevantists is that there are people in Heaven without the baptism of water. So in other words, like the liberals, they are saying that there are exceptions to the dogma. This is irrational and heretical.)
3.They are no more saying that there is one baptism for the forgiveness of sin which is the baptism of water. The baptism of water unlike BOD,BOB and I.I is known,visible and repeatable.Now for Bishop Donald Sanborn, Fr. Anthony Cekada, IAAD and the sedevacantists at CMRI, it is " I believe in three or more baptisms for the forgiveness of sin. They are water, desire and blood and they are all known baptisms'. This is first class heresy.IAAD had nothing to say on all this.
(He still has nothing to say on all this in his addendum. This is heresy.He is contradicting the Nicene Creed with the common irrationality which he has been taught and always took for granted as being true since it was magisterial.This error is at the centre of Fr. Anthony Cekada's writings on Feeneyism and Bishop Donald Sanborns writing on the MHTS seminary webpage, on Vatican Council II. )
4.Then since BOD, BOB and Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance) refer to known cases ,Vatican Council II is a break with the dogma EENS, the Syllabus of Errors and the Creeds ( Nicene, Athanasius Creed). LG 16 being explicit would contradict the Feeneyite version of the dogma EENS. So we have the sedevacantists rejecting Vatican Council II.
(The sedevantists reject Vatican Council II and think it is correct to do so  not being aware of the error in the intepretation. I do not mix up what is implicit and invisible as being explicit and visible.)
I accept Vatican Council II and the Council does not contradict the dogma EENS as it does for the sedevacantists who are using an irrational premise and inference and are unaware of it.)
There is a choice. If they consider BOD, BOB and Lumen Gentium 16 as referring to invisible- for- us cases, which would only be known to God, there are no explicit exceptions to Vatican Council II. Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Tradition. This is not known to them. So they maintain their heretical interpretation of Church documents using the LG 16 is explicit premise.So their conclusion is non traditional , as it is that of the liberals.They reject Vatican Council II and the liberals accept it. Both are making the same factual error in their reasoning.
(They have a choice but it means identifying the error and admitting that an error, a doctrinal error, was made by them all these years.The fault is not there with Vatican Council II.)
Since the sedevacantists ( including the Dimond brothers at the Most Holy Family Monastery,USA) are not aware of the visible-invisible distinction in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 they reject Vatican Council II and have gone into sedevacantism, blaming the popes, when it is the irrational premise which they use which is responsible for all the confusion and heresy.
(The sedevantists are in heresy and they cannot refute what I have said point by point. It is the same heresy as the liberals. The difference is, the liberals use the same irrationality to interpret Magisterial documents,and accept Vatican Council II while the sedevacantists reject it.
The liberals and sedevantists accept the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and both affirm the error in that Letter. )

They offer/ attend Holy Mass in Latin believing:-
1. There are known exceptions to the dogma EENS even though the text of the dogma does not mention any exceptions.This is heresy.
It is also a rejection of the dogma on infallibility of the pope ex cathedra.EENS is a de fide teaching. The dogma was defined by three Church Councils.
2. For the sedevacantists there are three known baptisms and not one for the forgiveness of sin. This is a rejection of the Nicene Creed which says there is only one. This is first class heresy.
3. They reject  Vatican Council II since for them  LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 refer to exceptions to EENS. In other words they refer to explicit cases in the present times, for them to be exceptions to the dogma on salvation. This is irrational. This is also a rejection of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church which accepts Vatican Council II using the same irrationality and error of the sedevacantists. It is all being done with a heretical interpretation.
4.Historical references of BOD, BOB and I.I are assumed to be explicit instead implicit, visible instead of invisible. This is contrary to common sense. This irrationality is used to put aside  the Nicene Creed,the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441), the dogma on the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra  and Vatican Council II.
With this heresy they offer/ attend the Traditional Latin Mass.
When for example St. Maximillian Kolbe offered the Traditional Latin Mass he affirmed the strict interpretation of EENS and did not change the Nicene Creed.
Today I attend the Novus Ordo Mass and the Traditional Latin Mass and I hold the strict interpretation of EENS along with invisible for us and known only to God BOD, BOB and I.I.
I have not changed the dogma  EENS or the Nicene Creed and for me  Vatican Council II is not a  break with EENS and the Creeds.
-Lionel Andrades



The MHTS sedevacantist position is heretical and they are unable to defend themself

The Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Cushing was in manifest heresy and the pope supported it and the sedevacantists have accepted it.

There is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict Cantate Dominio on ecumenism and other religions - 2

Fr. Nicholás Depósito
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

There are so many passages in Vatican Council II which are there because of the error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949