Tuesday, March 15, 2016

Tancred (The Eponymous Flower) does not know the answer ?

l'immagine del profilo di The Eponymous Flower
I have been corresponding in the Comments Section ,with Tancred on his blog  The Eponymous Flower .He will not answer simple questions.
May be he has contacted Brother Andre Marie MICM and John Vennari and they too do not want to answer two questions.
Then I  mentioned that Archbishop Thomas E. Gullickson, Fr. S.Visintin and John Martignoni have answered those two questions and would he agree with them. There is no answer from Tancred or even Brother Andre Marie MICM, the Prior at the St. Benedict Center, Richmond, N.H, USA.
What's Tancred afraid of? His reputation? His association with the St. Benedict Centre ?. He does not write under his real name, so what's he afraid of?
Here are the comments:
  1. Lionel:
  2. Tancred,
    Would you agree with Archbishop Thomas E. Gullickson
    Fr.S.Visintin osb and John Martignoni?
    Would you say there are no physically known cases of persons now in Heaven saved without the baptism of water?
    You cannot see in the flesh, people who are now in Heaven and are allegedly saved without the baptism of water?
    ________________

    Similarly this year you do not know of any one saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church?
    You cannot see them in Heaven or meet them on earth?
    ______________________________

    You do not pèrsonally know of any one saved with the baptism of desire or blood and without the baptism of water during your life time?

    You also do not know of any one who will be saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water?

    _______________________________

    So for you Lumen Gentium 16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance) would refer to an invisble case ?
    ________________________

    Similarly there was no one in 1949 Boston who could have personally known of someone saved with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water?

    No one could have seen or met someone who was a living exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) ?


    So does LG 16 refer to an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS for you?
    -Lionel


    Replies


    1. I believe exactly what Br. Andre teaches.
    2. Lionel: 
    3. These are rational questions.

      Would you say there are no physically known cases of persons now in Heaven saved without the baptism of water?
      You cannot see in the flesh, people who are now in Heaven and are allegedly saved without the baptism of water?

      Even a young man or a non Catholic can answer these questions.
      Why are you, Brother Andre Marie MICM and the sedevacantists not responding ?

      ____________________________

      Similarly this year you do not know of any one saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church?
      You cannot see them in Heaven or meet them on earth?

      Are these difficult questions?

      Surely even Brother Andre Marie MICM, the Prior at the St.Benedict Center Richmond, N.H,USA believes you Tancred, cannot physically see people in Heaven and neither can other human beings in general ?
      -Lionel
      ______________________________
    4. Lionel:
    5. You may say that BOD is not explicit for you.But is there are exceptions to EENS it means you know of an explicit case, an explicit exception.For the magisterium there are exceptions.So the baptism of desire is explicit for the Vatican and the traditionalists.
      http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/you-may-say-that-bod-is-not-explicit.html


      Hypothetical cases are explicit for Brother Andre Marie MICM and so LG 16 is a break with the dogma EENS for the St. Benedict Centers and the SSPX? And also for you?
      -Lionel
    6. http://eponymousflower.blogspot.it/2016/03/help-saint-benedict-center-find-priest.html
    7. ___________________________

Tancred,
If you say that LG 16 is a break with the dogma EENS and so Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition and in particular with EENS, then you have made the distinction. You have set things up. And this is really the position on Vatican Council II for the SBC and the SSPX groups.

If LG 16 is a break with the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) then it means LG 16 is referring to an objective case, for it to be an exception.
It means LG 16 is not a reference to a hypothetical case, but a seen in the flesh case. So the distinction has been made by you.And I have to keep responding to this irrationality.
-Lionel


http://eponymousflower.blogspot.it/2016/03/catholic-cardinal-and-masonic-lodge.html



Lionel:

It's not problematic in this case.Since we now know hypothetical cases cannot be exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So we re-read Vatican Council II without the old conditioning.
The Councils comes out traditional and Feeneyite.

Tancred and the SBC ( Richmond N.H and Still River) are interpreting Vatican Council as the Masons would want them to do so.


Eleonore Villarrubia teaches Catholic school children to interpret Vatican Council II with an irrational inference and as a break with the dogma EENS ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/eleonore-villarrubia-teaches-catholic.html

They are not announcing that LG 16 for example refers to an invisible and not a visible case.This is something but obvious but yet they will not comment on it.Tancred possibly has to ask Brother Andre Marie's permission before commenting on this.

This is something simple but they are avoiding it it.
Here are two questions which they will not answer.This maintains the problem.

1) Do we personally know the dead now saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc,can we see them, are they physically visible to us in 2016 ?


2) Since we do not know any of these cases, in real life, they are not visible for us, there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, or Ad Gentes 7 which states 'all' need 'faith and baptism' for salvation ?
________________________

The same problem is there with the FSSP and the SSPX.

No denial from FSSP

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/no-denial-from-fssp.html
-Lionel Andrades

The St. Benedict Centers are saying there are known exceptions to the dogma EENS,outside the Church there is known salvation, so they reject Vatican Council II for suggesting this
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/the-st-benedict-centers-are-saying.html


Lay Catholics,including bloggers still do not realize that Vatican Council II can be interpreted with the blue or red column
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/07/lay-catholicsincluding-bloggers-still.html#links



IHM schools teaching error

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/07/ihm-schools-teaching-error.html

Fr.Leonard Feeney's communities like Peter Vere interpret Vatican Council II with an irrationality

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/07/frleonard-feeneys-communities-like.html

Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary religious formation :no comment since last December

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/06/slaves-of-immaculate-heart-of-mary.html



The Church is necessary for salvation. We agree here. But LG 16 is an exception to EENS for the MICM?http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/06/the-church-is-necessary-for-salvation.html
MICM does not want to change its official position on Vatican Council II : need to break away from Hildebrand, Davis,SSPX
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/06/micm-does-not-want-to-change-its.html

Michael Voris, Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary are unaware that nothing in Vatican Council II can be an exception to EENS


http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/06/michael-voris-slaves-of-immaculate.html

Cardinal Robert Sarah and the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary 



Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary liberalism: same as Cardinal Walter Kaspar

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/05/slaves-of-immaculate-heart-of-mary.html




Bro.Thomas Augustine MICM, Fr.Francois Laisney SSPX, Fr.Joseph Pfeiffer SSPX-SO and sedevacantists Michael and Peter Dimond assume that the baptism of desire is relevant to the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus


St.Benedict Centers USA keep affirming Vatican Council II but not like the SSPX or the liberal bishops

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/01/stbenedict-centers-usa-keep-affirming.html

St.Benedict Centers - misleading
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/01/stbenedict-centers-misleading.html

It is a fact of life that we cannot see or know exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It is not just my opinion

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/01/it-is-fact-of-life-that-we-cannot-see_1.html



No comments: