Sunday, December 24, 2017

A Happy and Holy Christmas to Readers




Peter and Michael Dimond at the Most Holy Family Monastery are not able to face a new reality.



I have been asking Peter and Michael Dimond if the baptism of desire(BOD) refers to personally known people , saved outside the Church and of course they do not want to talk about it . They have put away the Baptism of desire as non existing.But the very fact that hey consider BO an exception to EENS and so they reject it implies that there are known cases of the BOD for them. 
Anyway, like Bishop Donald Sanborn they tell be not to spam them.They do not understand what I am saying.
I tell sedevacantists that there is a  former Dean of Theology at a Pontifical University in Rome, who is now the Rector of that universtity.He confirmed that he did not know of any BOD case in our reality and so BOD is not an exception to EENS for him.So this changes our interpretation of Vatican Council II. All the traditionalists are interpreting LG 16 etc as exceptions to Feeneyite EENS and the old ecclesiology of the Church.
This is of no import to the sedevacantists who wrongly blame the popes for Vatican Council II, when the fault lies with their false premise.
Peter and Michael Dimond, on their website promote a book  on the baptism of desire  and have not covered this point.See the right had side tags on this blog for the many reports I have written about them and this issue over the years.
Maybe they could answer my question and then update their book.Of course they would  have to delete larges sections of their book, which were written assuming  BOD referred to visible and known people. They would  also have to review their position with reference to the 'Vatican Council II sect' ':Since the common interpretation for them is BOD refers to a known caseIt is an exception to Feeneyite EENS and the old ecclesiology, so they reject it.
They have called so many people heretics when the Council is not a rupture with EENS. They did not know abut )Vatican Council (Feeneyite).Can they face this new reality?
-Lionel Andrades





If the Baptism of Desire refers invisible people in our reality only then Bishop Donald Sanborn adn Fr.Anthony Cekada are stuck. There is no rational way out.


If the Baptism of Desire refers invisible people in our reality only, if they are not real people saved outside the Church who are known to us in real life, then Bishop Donald Sanborn and Fr.Anthony Cekada are stuck.
There is no rational way out.
Their entire theology and basic philosophy was based on invisible for us baptism of desire cases which became exceptions  to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
It is now probably two years  or more since I have asked them if BOD refers to invisible cases in our reality.
It is obvious for me that we  cannot see someone saved with BOD. BOD would only be known to God. The sedevacantists  will not answer.
BOD refers to known people or are they just possibilities known only to God, things hoped for, speculation with goodwill.
Could someone ask them if BOD refers to a physically visible person?
Since they consider BOD an exception to Feeneyite EENS they imply that BOD is physically visible to be an exception.
Now they will not admit that they were wrong they do not want to talk about it.
-Lionel Andrades


Traditionalists will not answer if the baptism of desire refers to visible and known people whom we cannot meet or see


Ask traditionalist Catholics if the baptism of desire(BOD) refers to invisible people in our reality and they will not answer. They simply will not answer.
You ask them if we can see or meet a BOD case on earth and months go by and they will not answer.
Yesterday after over a year the same question to a prominent Catholic speaker was not answered.Today he has e-mailed me for a clarification.
He knows the answer of course.
It's common knowledge that BOD refers to only hypothetical cases.
He can admit that the baptism of desire refers  to only a theoretical case. We humans cannot  see someone  invisible. BOD cases are known  only to God.So if he answers 'yesà, he would have to admit that the Church made a mistake and so did he.Or, someone faked it in some way to get rid of the dogma EENS. If he admits that BOD is invisible for us human beings in 2017 and also in 1965 or 1949, then it was also invisible at the time of St. Emerentiana or St. Victor. No one could have seen them saved with the baptism of desire or baptism of blood. It would also mean that Mystici Corporis and other magisterial documents  which mention the baptism of desire)BOD), the baptism of blood(BOB and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) are referring to non visible people.So BOD, BOB and I.I could never have been an exception to Feeneyite EENS. Someone made a mistake!
For the SSPX and the SBC the BOD refers to visible and known people and from this position they will argue for and against BOD.
They do not realize that the  magisterium made a mistake also in Vatican Council II to assume BOD, BOB and I.I were exceptions or relevant to traditional EENS.
-Lionel Andrades