CONTINUED
Lionel: So when you attend Mass, LG 16 ( invincible ignorance) is an exception to EENS. So Vatican Council II contradicts EENS for you? This is your ecclesiology at Holy Mass. This is your faith.
My faith at Mass is different.Ecclesiology is different. It is traditional, irrespective of the Rite
My faith at Mass is different.Ecclesiology is different. It is traditional, irrespective of the Rite
John 2: We are bound by the dogmas of the faith, not by the non-dogmatic teachings of Vatican II.
Lionel: So when you attend Mass, LG 16 ( invincible ignorance) is an exception to EENS. So Vatican Council II contradicts EENS for you? I repeat the question which has not been answered.
________________________________
Invincible ignorance is not an exception to EENS.
Lionel: You mean there are no physically visible cases of someone saved in invincible ignorance and without or with the baptism of water.So it is not an exception to EENS.
Neither would UR 3 be an exception to EENS?
Una Voce Reflection on Vatican II
As mentioned, the “letter” of the Council is all-too-often irreconcilable with the true Faith.
Consider, for example, that ecumenists who treat the practitioners of false religion, not as persons who stand in need of conversion to the Holy Catholic faith, but rather as those whose heretical community is being used by Christ as a “means of salvation” (UR 3), can also reasonably claim recourse to the Council’s “letter.”
Therefore, Una Voce should avoid lending credence to the notion that the “letter” of the Council is reliable.-Louie Verrechio 1
For me UR 3 is reconcilable with the true Faith, with the dogma EENS and the Syllabus of Errors.Also for you? For Verrechio there are explicit cases of someone being saved in 'imperfect communion with the Church'. There are none for me.
__________________
Your claim would certainly be news to the anti-modernist Pope Pius IX, who explicitly taught that one could be joined to the Church by supernatural faith and perfect charity, while being ignorant of the Catholic Church.
Lionel: One is joined to the Church with supernatural faith and perfect charity and the baptism of water.If with these conditions you say someone has the baptism of desire too and is saved I would not object.
_____________________________
Any Thomist would concede the same, since it is God who infuses these supernatural virtues in the soul, according to His divine and eternal decrees.
Lionel: Yes I agree with you but this is not the issue here.
_____________________________
Indeed, our faith and ecclesiology are different. Mine is Thomist and Tridentine. Yours is of your own making.
Lionel: In my ecclesiology all need to enter the Church in 2016 and there are no physical exceptions.
In your ecclesiology you seem to say all need to enter the Church in 2016 except for cases of the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance. In other words , they are physically known.
______________________________
Lionel: So when you attend Mass, LG 16 ( invincible ignorance) is an exception to EENS. So Vatican Council II contradicts EENS for you? I repeat the question which has not been answered.
________________________________
Invincible ignorance is not an exception to EENS.
Lionel: You mean there are no physically visible cases of someone saved in invincible ignorance and without or with the baptism of water.So it is not an exception to EENS.
Neither would UR 3 be an exception to EENS?
Una Voce Reflection on Vatican II
As mentioned, the “letter” of the Council is all-too-often irreconcilable with the true Faith.
Consider, for example, that ecumenists who treat the practitioners of false religion, not as persons who stand in need of conversion to the Holy Catholic faith, but rather as those whose heretical community is being used by Christ as a “means of salvation” (UR 3), can also reasonably claim recourse to the Council’s “letter.”
Therefore, Una Voce should avoid lending credence to the notion that the “letter” of the Council is reliable.-Louie Verrechio 1
For me UR 3 is reconcilable with the true Faith, with the dogma EENS and the Syllabus of Errors.Also for you? For Verrechio there are explicit cases of someone being saved in 'imperfect communion with the Church'. There are none for me.
__________________
Your claim would certainly be news to the anti-modernist Pope Pius IX, who explicitly taught that one could be joined to the Church by supernatural faith and perfect charity, while being ignorant of the Catholic Church.
Lionel: One is joined to the Church with supernatural faith and perfect charity and the baptism of water.If with these conditions you say someone has the baptism of desire too and is saved I would not object.
_____________________________
Any Thomist would concede the same, since it is God who infuses these supernatural virtues in the soul, according to His divine and eternal decrees.
Lionel: Yes I agree with you but this is not the issue here.
_____________________________
Indeed, our faith and ecclesiology are different. Mine is Thomist and Tridentine. Yours is of your own making.
Lionel: In my ecclesiology all need to enter the Church in 2016 and there are no physical exceptions.
In your ecclesiology you seem to say all need to enter the Church in 2016 except for cases of the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance. In other words , they are physically known.
______________________________
John: Because you cannot refute the foregoing, your cause has come to an end.
Lionel: What is my cause? I am affirming the dogma EENS ,with no visible, no known exceptions in 2016. I am affirming the baptism of desire which will include the baptism of water, since this is the dogmatic teaching and since it is invisible it does not contradict
EENS.
Lionel: What is my cause? I am affirming the dogma EENS ,with no visible, no known exceptions in 2016. I am affirming the baptism of desire which will include the baptism of water, since this is the dogmatic teaching and since it is invisible it does not contradict
EENS.
John 2: Perfect, Lionel. If the teaching "the baptism of desire includes the baptism of water" is, in your words, "a dogmatic teaching," then please produce the dogmatic definition. It's as simple as that. Cut and paste the dogmatic definition, and cite the Pope and/or council, who dogmatically declared that baptism of desire absolutely, necessarily and always is followed by baptism of water before death. If you cannot produce the definition, then this dialogue is over.
Lionel:
Extraordinary Magisterium
Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215): “One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful outside which no one at all is saved…”
Pope Boniface VIII in his Papal Bull Unam Sanctam (A.D. 1302): “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (A.D. 1438 – 1445): “[The most Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart `into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt. 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
http://catholicism.org/eens-popes.html
These three definitions of outside the Church there is no salvation says that the baptism of water in the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation.One has to remain n the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. One cannot choose to remain in the Church with the baptism of desire.So the reference here is to physical baptism of water.
So when I say that the desire for the baptism of water of a catechumen,who allegedly dies before receiving it, has to be followed by the baptism of water, I am referring to this de fide teaching.
Secondly we humans cannot know of any catechumen who died before he received the baptism of water and was saved. This is a strawman. It has been part of a campaign by the enemies of the Church. So when the popes and saints refer to it, it is in response to their questions as part of their campaign against the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
I say all need the baptism of water in the Catholic Church based on Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14).All, would include the hypothetical cases of those who have that precious desire, of the hypothetical catechumen.
Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."-Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II.
This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church.-Lumen Gentium 14
______________________________________
Lionel:
Extraordinary Magisterium
Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215): “One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful outside which no one at all is saved…”
Pope Boniface VIII in his Papal Bull Unam Sanctam (A.D. 1302): “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (A.D. 1438 – 1445): “[The most Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart `into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt. 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
http://catholicism.org/eens-popes.html
These three definitions of outside the Church there is no salvation says that the baptism of water in the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation.One has to remain n the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. One cannot choose to remain in the Church with the baptism of desire.So the reference here is to physical baptism of water.
So when I say that the desire for the baptism of water of a catechumen,who allegedly dies before receiving it, has to be followed by the baptism of water, I am referring to this de fide teaching.
Secondly we humans cannot know of any catechumen who died before he received the baptism of water and was saved. This is a strawman. It has been part of a campaign by the enemies of the Church. So when the popes and saints refer to it, it is in response to their questions as part of their campaign against the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
I say all need the baptism of water in the Catholic Church based on Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14).All, would include the hypothetical cases of those who have that precious desire, of the hypothetical catechumen.
Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."-Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II.
This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church.-Lumen Gentium 14
______________________________________
Lionel: I affirm the Nicene Creed and the Athanasius Creed, I affirm the Catechism(1995) in which I interpret hypothetical cases as just being hypothetical.
So I support my view with magisterial documents interpreted rationally.
John 2: But you don't affirm the dogmatic teaching of the council of Trent, her catechism and the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas, which all addressed BOD explicitly, unlike Nicea and the Athanasian Creed.
Lionel: Again I will not go in circles only because you will not define your terms in a dialogue.
1.You mean the liberal theologians and the SSPX assume the reference to BOD by the popes and saints, is explicit.
2.You agree ( or have not denied in the past) that none of them specifically mentioned an objective, explicit BOD.
3.You have also agreed in this e-mail that the BOD is invisible; it is not physically visible to us . So an invisible case to the naked eye; a physically invisible case, cannot be an exception to all needing to formally enter the Church ( with faith and baptism) to avoid Hell.
The Nicene Creed and the Athanasius Creed do not mention the baptism of desire.Instead explicit- baptism of desire contradicts the Nicene Creed ( I believe in one baptism...) and the Athanasius Creed ( Outside the Church there is no salvation).
__________________________________________
So if you want to be "rational," Lionel, then "view" the "Magisterial documents" that actually address BOD, as well as the teaching of St. Thomas.
Lionel: I address them. I accept BOD wherever it is mentioned. Since I am rational I say I cannot physically see any BOD case. I assume you are saying the same thing.For St.Thomas Aquinas too, BOD would be invisible. This would be a rational observation.
However when Louie Verrecchio, Una Voce and liberal ecumenists assume UR 3 ( see above) contradicts the dogma EENS and the Syllabus of Errors, is this rational for you? A rational interpretation?
__________________________________________
Lionel: Again I will not go in circles only because you will not define your terms in a dialogue.
1.You mean the liberal theologians and the SSPX assume the reference to BOD by the popes and saints, is explicit.
2.You agree ( or have not denied in the past) that none of them specifically mentioned an objective, explicit BOD.
3.You have also agreed in this e-mail that the BOD is invisible; it is not physically visible to us . So an invisible case to the naked eye; a physically invisible case, cannot be an exception to all needing to formally enter the Church ( with faith and baptism) to avoid Hell.
The Nicene Creed and the Athanasius Creed do not mention the baptism of desire.Instead explicit- baptism of desire contradicts the Nicene Creed ( I believe in one baptism...) and the Athanasius Creed ( Outside the Church there is no salvation).
__________________________________________
So if you want to be "rational," Lionel, then "view" the "Magisterial documents" that actually address BOD, as well as the teaching of St. Thomas.
Lionel: I address them. I accept BOD wherever it is mentioned. Since I am rational I say I cannot physically see any BOD case. I assume you are saying the same thing.For St.Thomas Aquinas too, BOD would be invisible. This would be a rational observation.
However when Louie Verrecchio, Una Voce and liberal ecumenists assume UR 3 ( see above) contradicts the dogma EENS and the Syllabus of Errors, is this rational for you? A rational interpretation?
__________________________________________
Lionel: You ,the SSPX and the sedevacantists cannot say the same. You can get away with heresy and irrationality since you are supported by the present liberal magisterium, which opposes the pre Council of Trent magisterium which did not state that BOD cases are explicit in our reality.
John 2: Lionel, since St. Thomas Aquinas explicitly taught that BOD joins one to the Church for salvation, are you then saying that the Universal Doctor of the Church was a heretic?
Lionel: Again you are conducting a dialogue without defining your terms.St. Thomas Aquinas explictly taught that BOD was objective and so joins one to the Church or did St. Thomas Aquinas explicitly teach that BOD is implict Always, it is known only to God. and so hypothetically, speculatively there could be a non explicit case known only to God ?
________________________________________
In your words, "be precise." "Be specific." Was St. Thomas a heretic?
Lionel: He is not a heretic.Since he did not say that there were objective explicit exceptions to the dogma EENS. Liberals have to infer it.The conclusion is non traditional, modernistic and heretical.
Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops overlooked this modernism.We now have offically approved heresy of the magisterium, supported with a straight face, by traditionalists.
-Lionel Andrades
SUMMARY
1. So when you attend Mass, LG 16 ( invincible ignorance) is an exception to EENS. So Vatican Council II contradicts EENS for you?
2. Would UR 3 be an exception to EENS?
3.For Louie Verrechio there are explicit cases of someone being saved in 'imperfect communion with the Church' (UR 3). So he is critical of UR 3?
4.In your ecclesiology all need to enter the Church in 2016 except for cases of the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance?
5. We humans cannot know of any catechumen who died before he received the baptism of water and was saved ?
6.The Nicene Creed and the Athanasius Creed do not mention the baptism of desire ?
7.When Louie Verrecchio, Una Voce and liberal ecumenists assume UR 3 ( see above) contradicts the dogma EENS and the Syllabus of Errors, is this rational for you? A rational interpretation?
8.Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops overlooked this modernism i.e physically explicit for us baptism of desire which is an exeption to the dogma EENS?
1.
https://akacatholic.com/una-voce-reflection-on-vatican-ii/
Lionel: Again you are conducting a dialogue without defining your terms.St. Thomas Aquinas explictly taught that BOD was objective and so joins one to the Church or did St. Thomas Aquinas explicitly teach that BOD is implict Always, it is known only to God. and so hypothetically, speculatively there could be a non explicit case known only to God ?
________________________________________
In your words, "be precise." "Be specific." Was St. Thomas a heretic?
Lionel: He is not a heretic.Since he did not say that there were objective explicit exceptions to the dogma EENS. Liberals have to infer it.The conclusion is non traditional, modernistic and heretical.
Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops overlooked this modernism.We now have offically approved heresy of the magisterium, supported with a straight face, by traditionalists.
-Lionel Andrades
SUMMARY
1. So when you attend Mass, LG 16 ( invincible ignorance) is an exception to EENS. So Vatican Council II contradicts EENS for you?
2. Would UR 3 be an exception to EENS?
3.For Louie Verrechio there are explicit cases of someone being saved in 'imperfect communion with the Church' (UR 3). So he is critical of UR 3?
4.In your ecclesiology all need to enter the Church in 2016 except for cases of the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance?
5. We humans cannot know of any catechumen who died before he received the baptism of water and was saved ?
6.The Nicene Creed and the Athanasius Creed do not mention the baptism of desire ?
7.When Louie Verrecchio, Una Voce and liberal ecumenists assume UR 3 ( see above) contradicts the dogma EENS and the Syllabus of Errors, is this rational for you? A rational interpretation?
8.Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops overlooked this modernism i.e physically explicit for us baptism of desire which is an exeption to the dogma EENS?
1.
https://akacatholic.com/una-voce-reflection-on-vatican-ii/
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment