Wednesday, August 3, 2016

Nearly a year and sedevacantists will not answer if LG 16 refers to an invisible case : SSPX lay supporter suggests it is an invisible case but does not want to be quoted

It is nearly a year now. The sedevacantist bishop, priests and lay supporters will not answer if Vatican Council II,Lumen Gentium 16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance)can be intepreted as referring to explicit for us or invisible for us cases in 2015-2016.
Nor will they deny that they interpret LG 16 as being an explicit for us case in the present times i.e someone saved in invincible ignorance, without the baptism of water, who is personally known; whose name and surname is known.For the sedevacantists this person is a physical exception to all needing the baptism of water in the Catholic Church for salvation. This known person is an example of salvation outside the Church.
Over a year! -and they will not answer.
Bishop Donald Sanborn and Fr. Anthony Cekada have written articles on line on Feeneyism in which they assume that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ingnorance refer to known cases.They are objectively visible and so these cases  are relevant to EENS for them!

SSPX LAY SUPPORTER
Meanwhile a prominent lay supporter of the Society of St.Pius X, who is a speaker and lecturer, has said that we cannot see the soul of a person. So he concedes the baptism of desire etc are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So personally he has answered me.He is saying LG 16 refers to an invisible case.However he does not want this to be disclosed in public. He does not want to be quoted.In public he will not say that LG 16 refers to an invisible case in 2016. In other words he is saying that we cannot see people in Heaven with the naked eye in 2016 but he does not want to be quoted saying this!
-Lionel Andrades


OCTOBER 5, 2015

Four months and the sedevacantists will not answer if LG 16 is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus 

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/10/four-months-and-sedevacantists-will-not.html


Does BOD and I.I refer to visible or invisible cases in 2015 where you live? is a difficult question for a sedevacantist priest
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/10/does-bod-and-ii-refer-to-visible-or.html

The SSPX is interpreting LG 16 as being physically visible for us. If they assume it is invisible for us, Vatican Council II changes.The reconciliation process with the Vatican changes

Comments from the blog The Eponymous Flower : Archbishop Pozzo: Bishop Fellay to Accept Personal Prelature Arrangement

susan August 3, 2016 at 5:03 AM
so you're a calvanist....clearly...
Lionel:
I am saying that such a person would only be known to God. We cannot see any person's soul saved as such. So to suggest that this person is known to you personally and so is an exception to the dogma EENS contradicts the Church Fathes, popes and saints on EENS. It contradict Jesus in John 3:5 and Mark 16:16.

Calvinists? Susan, even the Calvinists, Baptists and non Christians know your referring to a hypothetical case.


__________________________

WE are most certainly bound by the Sacraments; God is not...
Lionel: According to the dogma EENS without faith and baptism at the time of death, a person is oriented to Hell. This has been the traditional teaching of the Church over the centuries.If there is someone saved without faith and baptism in the Church because God is not bound to Sacraments it would be unknown to us. So you are saying that these unknown cases are known and so are relevant to EENS?

____________________________

I have no desire to 'call up'...

Lionel: Call up someone who has not been conditioned into believeing hypothetical cases are known exceptions in 2016 to the dogma EENS.

I am sorry that the SSPX priest at the chapel you go to cannot help you with this and neither can Louie Verrecchio. Since it is a common sense question. It is common knowledge, known to all people, that we cannot see the soul of someone in Heaven.


_____________________________

EWTN is a protestant mess...
Lionel: Which Fathers of the Church? None of them said the desire for the baptism of water of that famous unknown catechism is an exception to the dogma EENs. You have to infer that it is an exception.

Then we come to Vatican Council II. It is only by making this wrong inference that Vatican Council II is a break with EENS.

I make the explicit-implicit, visible-invisible distinction and choose invisible for us baptism of desire. You unknowlingly choose visible for us baptism of desire.

Then you assume that visible for us baptism of desire(LG 16) is an exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS, as it was known to the 16th century missionaries in the Catholic Church.

So this is not the teaching of the Catholic Church. It is an innovation approved by the liberals.

_______________________________

And Lionel, I say this in all sincerity and Charity; ...
Lionel: But when are you going to enter the discussion,when will you discus particular points. ? I am saying BOD can be explicit or implicit what are you saying about it? Nothing!
I am saying LG 16 can be visible or invisible in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.What are you saying about this ? Nothing.
Sorry Susan, you mean well and your a good person but we still have not begun a discussion.

__________________________________

A normal, healthy reaction is to wish the other well...
Lionel: The SSPX is interpreting LG 16 as being physically visible for us. If they assume it is invisible for us, Vatican Council II changes.The reconciliation process with the Vatican changes.It is the SSPX then which will doctrinally be in a sure position.So this is an important issue!
-Lionel Andrades



Now it is being asked who was this catechumen who was originally saved without the baptism of water which he desired before death ? How could there be a known case? How could any one know of any one who is saved without the baptism of water ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/08/now-it-is-being-asked-who-was-this.html

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/08/now-it-is-being-asked-who-was-this.html

Now it is being asked who was this catechumen who was originally saved without the baptism of water which he desired before death ? How could there be a known case? How could any one know of any one who is saved without the baptism of water ?

  1. Comments from the blog The Eponymous Flower : Archbishop Pozzo: Bishop Fellay to Accept Personal Prelature Arrangement
     
  2. Lionel:
    You tell me.
    Can you physically see people in Heaven?
    Can you see or meet someone in 2016 who is also Heaven?
    Can there be known cases of people saved with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water?
    Then ask yourself how do the SSPX priests and bishops answer the above questions.

    Is their theology and doctrines based on there being known people on earth saved without the baptism of water, who are explicit exceptions to all needing to enter the Church for salvation?
    Then what about Vatican Council II? Can this reasoning be applied to Vatican Council II?
  3. Lionel....for God's sake (literally!), you're arguing over ONE point, that may or may not be faulty, I stand on the latter side along with a LONG list of Saints, Doctors, and Trent....

    http://catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm

    http://catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm

    We've got bergog-lio systematically dismantling the CHurch with every manner of heresy and persecution, and you're pulling this out of your butt to pick a (losing) fight?

    Boniface was right. What the hell is wrong with you?


  4. this was meant to be the second link....

    http://www.catholicessentials.net/baptismofdesire.htm


  5. Lionel:
    Susan,
    I asked you those questions( above) and you have not still thought them through.
    ____________________

    Lionel....for God's sake (literally!), you're arguing over ONE point, that may or may not be faulty, I stand on the latter side along with a LONG list of Saints, Doctors, and Trent....

    Lionel: No you don't! Since either you or I stand with a long list of ....One of us has to be wrong.We both cannot be correct.
    __________________

    http://catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm

    Lionel: If you cannot answer the above questions please don't send me these links. I have responded to them numerous times on my blog over some six years.
    _________________________

    ________________________

    We've got bergog-lio systematically...
    Lionel: The SSPX is in line with the heresy of the two popes.But then how would you know ? You are not willing to even discuss the issue.
    In these links you imply that these BOD cases refer to personally known cases.Then you infer that they are exceptions to EENS.Otherwise why mention it. If they were not physically visible to you how could they be relevant or exceptions to the dogma EENS.
    Susan, BOD never had anything to do with the dogma EENS in the first place.Over the centuries those who wanted to eliminate the dogma were putting it forward. The saints and popes with good will would say that a person could be saved as such. They knew that these were hypothetical cases.

    Now it is being asked who was this catechumen who was originally saved without the baptism of water which he desired before death ? How could there be a known case? How could any one know of any one who is saved without the baptism of water ? Since this person would have to have a special gift to go to Heaven and return to tell us about it.Do you understand what I am saying?
    The baptism of desire was a strawman from the very beginning.
    This irrational reasoning was them placed in Vatican Council II.

    ___________________

    Boniface was right.
    Lionel: Boniface like you, will not answer the above questions.
    His theology is based on their being physically known cases of the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance.

    _________________

    What the hell is wrong with you?
    Lionel: I am affirming the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church. I am affirming EENS and the baptism of desire( implict for us). I accept Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) and reject Vatican Council II( Cushingite.
    The SSPX is irrational. They only understand a Cushingite Vatican Council II. They interpret EENS with known exceptions( Cushingism) and they assume the baptsm of desire is physically explicit for us in 2016 and so it is an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS( Cushingism).This is heresy approved by the contemporary magisterium.It is a rupture with EENS as it was known to St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Francis Xavier, St. Maximmilian Kolbe....

    I am saying Islam,Judaism and other religions are not paths to salvation(AG 7, LG 14), according to Vatican Council II, you are saying they are and you reject Vatican Council II.
    The two popes also  interpret Vatican Council II like you but do not reject it.
    I am saying that there are no references in Vatican Council II, which negate the exclusivist ecclesiology which says all Muslims and Jews are on the path to Hell unless they convert into the Catholic Church.The SSPX says there are.So they reject Vatican Council II . I accept it.The SSPX is line with the liberals.Their reasoning is the same.While they differ from me.
    Why? Answer those questions and you will know.

    -Lionel Andrades


  6. Lionel:
    Susan,
    Phone up the apologist John Martignoni(EWTN diocese under Bishop Robert Baker) and discuss those basic questions I have mentioned above.
    Ask him if there are any baptism of desire cases in his diocese.When was the last time he met someone saved in invincible ignorance with or without the baptism of water?
    I have also quoted Fr. S.Visintin osb, Dean of Theology at the St.Anselm Pontifical University in Rome. He speaks English.Call him up.
    -Lionel Andrades
  7. p.s Excuse the numbers on the left hand side. I am unable to delete them.