Many times I have posted regarding Baptism of Desire (BOD) and Baptism of Blood (BOB) as extraordinary means of obtaining both Church membership and salvation at the moment of death. The Feenyites (both sedevacantist and Vatican II sect) are always ready to pounce on any exposition regarding this matter of established Church doctrine which must be believed in order for someone to be a Catholic. Instead, they should be more worried about the revised baptisms produced by the Second Vatican Robber Council and in use since at least 1972. I have always maintained that all the sacraments of the Vatican II sect are invalid except for most baptisms and marriages, since there is no need for a priest to validly confer either sacrament and the basic matter and form remain. I have been doing some research on this subject and I would like to revise my prior statement based on my findings: Some baptisms and marriages may be valid in the Vatican II sect not most.
I've changed my conviction based on some very serious considerations I'd like to share with you. First, I will set out Traditional Church teaching, followed by the revisions made to baptism in the Vatican II sect.
THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH ON BAPTISM
According to theologian Prummer, baptism is "the sacrament of regeneration through water in words" (quoting the Catechism of the Council of Trent). The effects of baptism by Divine Law are six: 1. The bestowal of the Baptismal character (even if the sacrament is unlawfully administered or received); 2. the remission of all sin; 3. the remission of all punishment; 4. the bestowal of Grace, virtues, and the gifts; 5. the bestowal of sacramental grace; 6. incorporation in the Church. (See Handbook of Moral Theology, 1957; pgs. 252 and 254)
The proper minister for lawful reception is a priest, and for valid reception, any person who has attained the use of reason. The remote matter of the sacrament is pure, natural water. The form of the sacrament, to be employed while the water (proximate matter) is flowing over the face or forehead is, "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (See Prummer, Ibid, pgs. 252-256). The intention of the minister is to remit Original Sin, infuse Grace, and make the person a member of the Catholic Church.
The sacrament is so necessary to salvation, Christ made it very hard to invalidate it.
VATICAN II AND CHANGES TO BAPTISM
Most Protestant sects acknowledge Baptism as a sacrament, so why all the changes by Vatican II in the rite? The Modernists wanted to bring it in alignment with the new and heretical ecclesiology, whereby one is more or less part of the Church according to "degrees of participation." Hence, the inversion of the primary and secondary effects of the sacrament (the usual ploy of the Modernist heretics), so that Original Sin is hardly mentioned, and emphasis is on "full participation in the Christian community."
According to the Vatican II sect's Christian Initiation, General Introduction, no. 4, 1973, "...baptism is the sacrament by which men and women are incorporated into the Church, built up together in the Spirit into a house where God lives, into a holy nation and a royal priesthood. It is a sacramental bond of unity linking all who have been signed by it." Really? "All who have been signed by it"? This would include validly baptized adults in heretical and schismatic sects--welcome to the new ecclesiology.
As theologian Henry Davis teaches, "In conferring the sacraments, (as also in the consecration in Mass), it is never allowed to adopt a probable course of action as to validity and to abandon the safer course." (See Moral and Pastoral Theology,Sheed and Ward, 1935; 3:27). As previously stated, it is very hard to invalidate the sacrament of baptism, but where there's an evil will, the Modernists find an evil way. Yes, the matter is still water, and yes, the form is the substantially the same (substituting "you" for "thee" and "Holy Spirit" for "Holy Ghost" nevertheless retains the same meaning).
However, there are problems in many cases. With regard to the matter and form, many times the "priest" will
- flick water over the hair so as to preclude contact with the skin
- dip his fingers in the water and touch the forehead, not signifying a true ablution (washing) from sin
- separate the recitation of the form (words) from the water flowing on the recipient (proximate matter), sometimes by a long interval
- change the form to be politically correct (as one "priest" in Boston did by baptizing, "In the name of God the Creator, and of Jesus the Christ, and of the Holy Spirit.")
It will be protested that these are "abuses" and the integral rite retains the valid matter and form. However, there is a problem with the intention that could be inherent in the rite for those who use it. To begin with, the new rite calls itself, "The Rite of Christian Initiation" (one for adults, another for children). Absent are:
- The exorcisms
- The requirement a saint's name be used
- Godparents' playing an active role
- emphasis on remission of Original sin
But the rite has been changed---it was changed after the principles of the most heretical Protestants when they tampered with the rite of baptism in the 1500s. These baptisms are considered invalid. We must distinguish between false ideas in the intellect, and the intention which is an act of the will. If a baby is dying and the child's mother asks a non-Catholic nurse to baptize him, as long as that nurse intends to perform the baptism as instituted by Christ (in accordance with the mother's wishes with proper matter and form applied), the sacrament is valid. Therefore, personally held views that are heretical and erroneous regarding the sacrament of baptism do not render it invalid, as long as the sect's "priests" think they are repeating and performing the rite established by Christ and doing what the Church does using correct matter and form.
However, in his A Treatise on Baptism, theologian Kendrick writes, "The belief in [baptism's] efficacy to remit sin is not indeed necessary for its valid performance: but may we not fear that the prevailing errors concerning its being a mere form of association to the visible Church, utterly void of all spiritual efficacy, may so pervert the intention of the person who baptizes that he may propose to himself rather to comply with an established usage and form, than seriously to administer an institution of Christ Our Lord?" What Kendrick wrote about Protestant baptism in 1852 could easily apply to the Vatican II sect today. The revised rites, all in use since January 6, 1972, have a heretical concept driving them. They are now administered by invalidly ordained "priests" taught heresy in sodomite-filled seminaries where many may think baptism is just an empty rite, even as Original sin means "evil in the world" but is not an actual deprivation of grace. They do NOT intend to seriously administer an institution of Christ, in which case the baptism would be invalid!
My conclusion: some Vatican II baptisms are valid, and some are not--even ones where matter and form are correctly applied. This opens another can of worms: Marriages in the sect between a member validly baptized and one invalidly so. The consequences of the new rite of baptism are staggering.
Few receive the miracle of Baptism of Desire. Thanks to Vatican II and the false "popes," this venue might be the only hope for many of their followers.
Was just disagreeing with someone yesterday saying I should get conditionally baptized in the traditional rite of baptism!
ReplyDeleteI was baptized mid 70's in the novus ordo.
I agree that you should be conditionally re-baptized. The SSPV has been doing so for those baptized in the new rite. God Bless!
Delete---Introibo
I've changed my conviction based on some very serious considerations I'd like to share with you. First, I will set out Traditional Church teaching, followed by the revisions made to baptism in the Vatican II sect
ReplyDeleteLionel:
The baptism of water is needed for salvation in the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation.
Sedes are technically outside.
Doctrinally Vatican Council II is in agreement with Tradition but the sedes , like the 'Vatican Council II sect(Magisterium/liberals) use an irrational premise and inference to interpret Vatican Council II which they reject and which the present Magisterium accepts.
I am not a sede and I reject the sedes and the present Magisteriums interpretation of Vatican Council II.
I affirm the perennial Magisterium of the Church, the pre 1808 Magisterium in accord with Vatican Council II. Vatican Council II for me is in harmony with the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS and also the Syllabus of Errors.
For the sedes and the Magisterium Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition.
To my readers:
ReplyDeleteThree weeks ago (10/12) I published a post entitled "Beware The Bizarre." One of the three strange groups/individuals I wrote about was Lionel Andrades who runs a blog entitled "Eucharist and Mission" (EAM). He is a "Vatican II Feeneyite" i.e., he accepts Vatican II and their "popes" yet alleges the Magisterium can err (!) and denies Baptism of Desire (BOD) and Baptism of Blood (BOB) with some strange and fanciful ideas thrown in for good measure. I allowed him to comment on that post, so as to demonstrate his lack of understanding and just how bizarre are his teachings. I answered all his claims. You can read and decide for yourself. He wanted to place a comment on this post dealing with baptism. I will let him do so below, and then I will summarize the errors endemic among Feeneyites in general and Andrades in particular. I said not to engage him, so this will dispose with him for good. Rather than write yet another post on BOD and BOB, I thought I would just treat you to a second "post within a post." I hope all will learn from my response to Andrades, and please pray for his conversion.
---Introibo
The Errors of The Feeneyites and Lionel Andrades:
ReplyDelete1. They Do Not Accept The Teachings of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium
Vatican I infallibly taught: "...by Divine and Catholic Faith, all those things are to be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in Tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in Her Ordinary and Universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed." (See DENZ. 1792)
In what does the Ordinary Magisterium consist?
According to theologian Ott: The promulgation by the Church (of dogma)may be made either in an extraordinary manner through a solemn decision of faith made by the Pope or a General Council (Iudicium solemne) or through the ordinary and general teaching power of the Church (Magisterium ordinarium et universale). The latter may be found easily in the catechisms issued by the Bishops." (See Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, TAN reprint from 1955, pg. 4--Emphasis mine).
According to theologian Van Noort: "Clearly if a truth is capable of being declared an object of divine-catholic faith through the force of this ordinary and universal teaching, there is required such a proposal is unmistakably definitive........The major signs of such a proposal are these: that the truth be taught throughout the world in popular catechisms, or even more importantly, be taught by the universal and constant agreement of theologians as belonging to faith." (See Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology, Newman Press, 3:222, 1960--first emphasis in original; emphasis after ellipsis mine).
According to theologian Tanquerey: "B. The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church......
I. The Morally Unanimous Preaching (Teaching) of the Bishops
Bishops teach the flock entrusted and subject to them by means of catechisms, by synodal directives, mandates , and in public sermons. If it is evident from these documents that some doctrine is being set forth universally as an object of faith, then nothing else is required for this doctrine to be accepted de fide. Bishops spread throughout the world, but with the Roman Pontiff forming one Corporate Body, are infallible when declaring a teaching on faith or morals." (See Tanquerey, Manual of Dogmatic Theology I:177, 1959--Emphasis in original).
Therefore, a truth declared in catechisms, is as certain as dogmas proclaimed ex cathedra. Since God is the Author of all Truths of Faith any alleged contradiction between Truths stems from ignorance (culpable or inculpable).--continued below
The Feeneyites think you only need to believe ex cathedra pronouncements, but this is false. Why have a Magisterium that can teach error? You could never believe anything they teach, unless ex cathedra, and then according to THEIR private interpretation of those teachings, not as the Church understood them at the time of promulgation and as expounded by Her approved theologians. Andrades claims that he "I am not a sede and I reject the sedes and the present Magisteriums interpretation of Vatican Council II." Really? He rejects the present Magisterium? How can he NOT be a sedevacantist? If you accept the teaching authority of Francis and company, no Catholic can pick and choose what teachings to accept and reject, you must accept them ALL. Ironically, he rejects the ex cathedra teaching of Vatican I (1870) on the infallibility of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium!
ReplyDelete2. Popes, saints, and theologians have affirmed BOTH the absolute necessity of Baptism by water AND BOD/BOB.
Either they are schizophrenic, or they were referring to the ORDINARY way to enter the Church (water baptism) and Extraordinary means (BOD and BOB without water baptism.
3. Andrades (and many Feeneyites) wrongly believe that unless you receive Baptism with water, you are not part of the Church.
Andrades will continuously refer to BOD/BOB being "exceptions" to the dogma "Outside the Church No Salvation" (known in Latin abbrev. as "EENS") God can make one part of the Church without water baptism
4. Andrades weird attempt to salvage the bankrupt Feeneyite teaching by "seeing the dead."
ReplyDeleteWe know that certain saints are in Heaven by BOB, such as St. Victor who died as a catechumen. The liturgy tells us so, and the Church cannot teach error in the liturgy. If he died as a catechumen, by DEFINITION he died without baptism of water, but was saved by his own blood!
Andrades wrote to me on his blog:
"So you agree we cannot see any one in Heaven today.
You agree that we humans cannot see any one in the past,in 1949 or 1808.
So when could someone in the Church say with authority, that that he or she could see someone in Heaven who is there without the baptism of water and Catholic Faith.
Who had this gift?
When was this gift declared to be an infallible teaching ? Who issued this infallible statement that you claim is an authority in the Church?
Someone who could see the dead-saved in Heaven?
Then you keep asking me why do I mention the dead-saved in Heaven being visible?"
I need to ask him: Have you (or anyone else) been able to see St. Francis of Assisi or any other Saint WITH water baptism in Heaven? Have you seen Heaven? Have the popes who canonized the saints see them in Heaven? Have you seen God?
The only way we could know this--without "seeing the dead"--is ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. The same Church that teaches BOD/BOB as the extraordinary way to enter the Church without water baptism. The same Church that tells us certain people are saints in Heaven. The same Church whose teachings the heretical Fenneyites REJECT (see #1 above).
This is how we know BOD/BOB is true. This is how we know the unbaptized St. Victor is in Heaven. Andrades "magisterium" is no Magisterium at all. It can teach error in catechisms promulgated by Popes who were saints! How does he know ex cathedra teachings are true? He rejects the ex cathedra teaching of Vatican I on the infallibility of the universal and ordinary Magisterium.
5. Vatican II and loss of office
ReplyDeleteSedevacantists affirm the Traditional teaching of the Church--the Magisterium CANNOT teach error, but the hierarchy can defect and lose their authority.
St. Robert Bellarmine (1610) “A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.” De Romano Pontifice. II.30.
St. Alphonsus Liguori (†1787) “If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate.” Oeuvres Complètes. 9:232
For a complete list of pre-Vatican II theologians (as well as canon law citations) on loss of papal office, please see Traditionalists, Infallibility, and The Pope by Fr. Cekada at traditionalmass.org.
Unitatis Redintegratio of Vatican II teaches the heresy that Protestant SECTS are a "means of salvation." They refer to the heretical SECT and its false teachings NOT to the individuals within who could convert and be saved. The SECTS are ONLY a MEANS of DAMNATION.
Conclusion: Neither Feeneyites nor the Vatican II sect are Catholic. That goes double for Lionel Andrades.
Pray for him.
Excellent article. Looks like BoD and BoB is pretty much all that is left to the average awake Catholic, since getting ' conditionally baptized in the traditional rite of baptism', is about as available as a vaild Mass.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment and kind words. While it is still so unfortunate that the True Mass is rare, it is less so then when I converted in 1981. Luckily, I live in NYC, near Long Island, "The Home of Traditionalist Catholicism." Many Mass centers from the SSPV, CMRI, and many independents have sprung up.
ReplyDeleteI would urge anyone who feels he/she has not been validly baptized, and can't get to a Traditionalist priest, to have someone they trust do it. Video the event to show a priest later, who can then add the other ceremonies (exorcisms, etc.). Don't delay if you have doubts; always be ready to meet Christ.
You're in my prayers. God bless you and your family!
---Introibo
Thanks for you answer and prayers, God bless.
DeleteIn Christo
PS. What a wretched harvest does communion with falsehood produce.
Kyrie eleison!
To my readers:
ReplyDeleteI hope you will pardon me if I answer a "challenge" from Mr. Andrades. He's calling into question my integrity. I will print his challenge, and answer it USING HIS OWN "LOGIC." No more on this topic for awhile--that's why I'm keeping it in the comments section of this post!
Andrades: "I am saying there are no BOD cases on earth for us humans since they are invisible.They are not visible to us humans. IAAD will avoid an answer. He will not agree or disagree with me. Four months and the sedes will not answer this simple, rational question.
If for arguments sake I say, " O.K I accept BOD leading to salvation, now please tell me is BOD invisible or visible for us human beings ?" There will be no answer from him."
My answer: BOD cases are invisible. My question to Andrades: Are Baptism with water (BOW) cases visible or invisible to us on earth? They are invisible! What pope has seen the dead in Heaven with BOW? Who can I meet or see today, in 2015, who has been saved by BOW?
Not only are the "exceptions" invisible, but so is the rule! EENS and BOW are therefore only invisible and implicit for us on Earth. We don't know of anyone in Heaven with BOW, we can't see the dead. EENS and BOW are therefore only hypothetical and known only to God.
They only become explicit if you use the irrational premise of "Lionelism" which teaches:
1. You "accept" that the universal and ordinary Magisterium is infallible, but you believe that the catechisms promulgated by popes (by which the ordinary Magisterium operates) contain errors and heresy.
2. Francis can be a heretic, yet he remains "pope" against the teaching of the Church and YOU decide what to accept or reject like a Protestant.
3. There is no discontinuity between pre and post Vatican II teaching, but there IS such a discontinuity pre and post 1808. Nevertheless, it remains the same Church (!)
4. The Magisterium can teach falsehoods. The Holy Ghost is unable to prevent error from being taught through "pressure groups," "innocent mistakes," and the like.
Welcome to the irrationality and heresy that propogated by Lionel Andrades.
ReplyDeleteThe Catechism(1992) assumes BOD and BOB are explicit : this is the mistake in Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) and the Letter of the Holy Office
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/11/the-catechism1992-assumes-bod-and-bob.html
To my readers,
DeleteI'm keeping this in these comments as promised! But Lionel Andrades gave me the answers I knew he would, thereby proving me correct beyond any doubt! I will respond to his post linked in the comment above.
Lionel:
Good.Good so we agree that BOD cases are invisible.
Introibo: Yes, we do.
Lionel: There is confusion here.
The baptism of water is always visible for us. We can give it to someone we can repeat it. This is not possible with BOD(Baptism of Desire).
Introibo: In no way does that prove it was valid, or that it excludes God using BOD/BOB. The minister could have a defective intention as described above in my post.
Lionel: However the issue is : are there exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, is BOD an exception? Is BOD relevant to EENS? Does everyone need to be a formal member of the Church this year or can there be an exception? Was St. Emerentiana an exception to EENS or was she irrelevant?
Introibo: You're the one who's confused. You think EENS=Baptism by water (BOW). It does not. You can enter the Church by BOD and BOB without BOW. That's why BOD/BOB are indeed irrelevant to EENS because all Traditionalists agree with the dogma that only Catholics (those within the Church) can go to Heaven. The real issue is "How can Church membership be obtained?" The answer is under ordinary circumstances by faith and baptism (of water), under extraordinary conditions by faith and baptism of desire or blood. Feeneyites deny that membership in the Church is obtained by any way other than BOW and that is why you (wrongly and heretically) consider BOD and BOB as "exceptions" to BOW. They are not when you understand the dogma of EENS (which you do not). So St. Emerentiana is not and could not be an exception to EENS. She is only an exception to BOW. She has nothing to do with the dogma of EENS, properly understood. (Continued below)
DeleteLionel: No contempory pope has seen the dead in Heaven.In faith we know the saints are in Heaven.
Introibo: Good! We agree it is BY FAITH IN THE DECREES OF THE CHURCH we know who are saints in Heaven.
Lionel: There is confusion here.We accept EENS and the baptism of water in faith, as part of the Catholic Faith. We believe they are the teachings of God for the Catholic Church. This is a truth which God wants us to follow.
Introibo: The confusion is on your end, for the same Church that declares EENS infallibly ALSO declares BOD/BOW as part of that same infallible Catholic Faith. The problem with you Feeneyites is that you do not?will not submit to the authority of that Church, as I will prove below.
Lionel: IAAD and I now also agree that BOD and BOB refer to invisible cases.For me they are not relevant or exceptions to EENS and the necessity of the Baptism of water for all with no exceptions.This is the infallible teachings of the Catholic Church.
Introibo: We agree BOD cases are "invisible" (unknown), however, we disagree about BOB cases. We know by the teaching of the Church that St Emerantiana and St Victor DIED AS CATECHUMENS. Catechumens are unbaptized by definition, yet in Her liturgy the Church declared they were "baptized in their own blood." The Church is infallible in Her liturgy--you deny this. The Holy Ghost knows who is in Heaven and would not allow His Church to err, other wise we could never be certain of what to believe and the "gates of Hell" would prevail!
I agree that they are not relevant to EENS as I just explained. The Church does not infallibly teach BOW is the only way to obtain Church membership. I also agree that we must convert all we can by BOW because we cannot depend on a miracle of Grace (BOD/BOB) to save someone.
Likewise the ordinary means of sustaining life is to eat. God could allow someone to survive only on the Eucharist, like some saints did. However, I will not stop eating, or contributing to feed the poor depending on a miracle from God. So we must carry out The Great Commission.
(continued below)
ReplyDeleteLionel: The baptism of water is always explicit. EENS refers to all needing explicit baptism of water in the present times.If there is an exception the exception would also have to be explicit.
Introibo: We can see people baptized in water, but we don't know if that will ultimately avail them unto salvation. We know that St. Victor is in Heaven because of BOB by Faith in the infallible teaching of the Church--the same infallibility I will demonstrate that you deny. If the Church declares someone is in Heaven by BOB that's pretty "explicit" for a Catholic!
Lionel: I believe the Extra ordinary Magisterium is infallible ( ex cathedra).
The ordinary magisterium is subject to human error. To infer BOD is explicit and so an exception to EENS is an error of the ordinary Magisterium.
Introibo: Lionel has, by this statement, proven himself a heretic who denies the Indefectibility of the Church. Furthermore, The First Vatican Council infallibly taught: "...by Divine and Catholic Faith, all those things are to be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in Tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in Her Ordinary and Universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed." (See DENZ. 1792)
You DENY this infallible teaching and limit the Church's infallibility to ex cathedra teachings. Ironically, you deny THIS infallible ex cathedra teaching!
According to theologian Van Noort:
"The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church. ...But if the Church could make a mistake in the manner alleged when it legislated for the general discipline, it would no longer be either a loyal guardian of revealed doctrine or a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life." (Dogmatic Theology 2:114-115) Therefore all of what the Church legislates with papal approval is infallible; it cannot be evil or in error.
According to theologian Ott: The promulgation by the Church (of dogma)may be made either in an extraordinary manner through a solemn decision of faith made by the Pope or a General Council (Iudicium solemne) or through the ordinary and general teaching power of the Church (Magisterium ordinarium et universale). The latter may be found easily in the catechisms issued by the Bishops." (See Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, TAN reprint from 1955, pg. 4)
Therefore, when the universal and ordinary Magisterium approves the Catechism of Trent (promulgated by St. Pius V) or The Catechism of St. Pius X (promulgated by that same saintly pontiff) teaches BOD and BOB, they are infallibly true. You deny this because you are a Feeneyite heretic.
(Continued below)
ReplyDeleteLionel: The catechisms, reflect the Ordinary Magisterium.The human error is there with reference to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This could be the influence of political or other lobbies.
Introibo: So "political or other lobbies" can outsmart or overcome the protective power of the Holy Ghost? Really???
Lionel:For instance the Catechism of the Catholic Church ( 1992) refers to an 'aphorism' outside the Church there is no salvation.It does not refer to a dogma(CCC 846). The Catechism(1992) does not cite the text of the dogma defined by three Church Councils. Instead it implies that BOD and BOB are relevant as an 'aphorism'.
Introibo: This, dear Lionel, is EXACTLY why I'm a sedevacantist.
Major premise: The Church cannot teach error.
Minor premise: The Vatican II sect Catechism teaches numerous errors.
Conclusion: The 1992 catechism did NOT come from the Catholic Church but from men who lost their office through the profession of heresy as the Church has always taught.
I'm a catholic. You are a member of the Vatican II sect.
Lionel: Lionel Andrades is affirming the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church in harmony with Vatican Council II. This is a Vatican Council II interpreted without an irrational premise and inference.For him there is no pre and post Vatican Council II conflict. There is no change in the ecclesiology of the Church before and after Vatican Council II.There are no new doctrines proposed. There is no new innovation accepted.So where is the irrationality and heresy?
Introibo: here is the irrationality and heresy:
You claim to believe ex cathedra teaching, yet deny the ex cathedra teaching of the First Vatican Council which affirms the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium.
You claim a heretic can be pope and catechisms promulgated by the pope can teach error. Please cite ONE pre-vatican II council, theologian, or papal decree that teaches these errors. You can't. You never cite to any authority because Lionel Andrades, like Leonard Feeney are their own authority unto themselves.
Lionel: Pope Francis is still the pope, for me.
Introibo: And that is why you are outside the Church--like him. In objective reality he cannot be pope, as he is a heretic, like you. What's the point of having a pope who teaches all kinds of things and you never know what's true or not unless ex cathedra. Frankie will tell you that proselytism is nonsense and atheists can go to Heaven. YOU pick and choose what to accept and reject just like the pseudo-traditionalists SSPX. Please convert my friend. I hope all this typing has not been in vain! I'll be praying for your conversion.
To my readers,
DeleteMaybe I'm the one getting obsessed in responding to a Fenneyite who is more "out there" and bizarre than most. He attempted a partial reply. This is at least illuminating to you (I hope) in answering Fenneyites! Off we go again:
Lionel: In this correspondence it was good of IAAD to agree with the obvious : that the baptism of desire cases are not visible to us on earth.It must have been difficult for him, for whatever reason. However he still will not answer if Lumen Gentium 16 also refers to a visible for us case in 2015
Introibo: It's not difficult for me to state the obvious. BOD is invisible to us. So is Heaven. So is God. And your point is.....what?? There are so many heresies in Vatican II, Lumen Gentium #16 is the least of my worries. What about Unitatis Redintegratio which teaches the heresy that Protestant SECTS are a "means of salvation." They refer to the heretical SECT and its false teachings NOT to the individuals within who could convert and be saved. The SECTS are ONLY a MEANS of DAMNATION.
(continued below)
T
DeletePope Leo XIII in "Tametsi" (November 1, 1900) taught:
Consequently, all those who wish to reach salvation outside the Church, are mistaken as to the way and are engaged in a vain effort."
Yet V2 tells us "It follows that these separated Churches and Communities (not the individuals--the heretical sects and their false teachings--Introibo) though we believe they suffer from defects already mentioned, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church."
V2 teaches directly contrary to what all popes and councils taught before. Challenge to Lionel:
Cite ONE authoritative Church source that claims protestant SECTS (not the individuals who can convert) with their perverse doctrines are used by Christ to get people to Heaven. If you can't you've found heresy, and "not seeing the dead" will not get you out of it!
At the heart of Lionel's errors is his refusal to see that BOD and BOB having nothing to do with EENS and everything to do with Church membership! How does one get to Heaven?
They must (a) be members of the Catholic Church and (b) in the state of sanctifying Grace at the moment of death.
If both conditions are not satisfied you go to Hell. The dogma EENS means you must be a member of the Church to be saved. Non-Catholics go to Hell, For there to be an "exception" you must say a non-Catholic went to Heaven, e.g., a Hindu, Moslem, atheist, etc.
BOD and BOB are NOT "exceptions to this dogma. When you receive BOD or BOB at the moment of death God infuses the Faith and grace into your soul making you a MEMBER of the CHURCH the same as if you had been baptized with water (BOW). So why does this guy think ST. Victor, who went to Heaven with BOB without BOW is "an exception"? What difference does it make if we can see him or not? Lionel has admitted we can't see anyone in Heaven with or without BOW. So how do we know there are saints? The authority of the Church. The Holy Ghost knows who is there and whether they received BOW or not. He would not permit the Church to teach a falsehood in the liturgy. That is why we know he does not have BOW. Did Pope Pius XII see the soul of St. Maria Goretti in Heaven with BOW at her canonization in 1950? Who sees her there? Who in 2015 has seen her in Heaven with BOW? Does Lionel believe she is a saint? If so, then it can only be on Church authority.
Lionel:When I mention that EENS is infallible I mean that it is an infallible teaching, according to the text of the dogma, which says all need explicit baptism of water for salvation. The text of the dogma does not say there explicit cases of BOD and BOW which could be exceptions.It does not even refer to the BOW or BOD with reference to EENS. I am not discussing EENS as a faith-issue.I am saying that the Church teaches in the dogma that every one needs the baptism of water and there are no visible exceptions on earth in 2015.
Introibo: Typical Feeneyite who attempts to interpret dogma according to what he thinks it means. Notice that he thinks EENS =BOW as I said. It does not. BOD and BOB supply. Who is there in 2015 by BOB? St. Victor. How do I know? Not because I see him but on the authority of the Church. How does the Church know? The infallible guidance of the Holy Ghost (God) when making saints and in the liturgy prevents the Church from making a mistake. God knows all--including St. Victor in 2015--without having to see him!
ReplyDeleteSedevacantist will still not answer if LG 16 also refers to a visible for us case in 2015 - 2
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/11/sedevacantist-will-still-not-answer-if_11.html
To my readers,
DeleteThe illogical and irrationality typical of Fenneyite heretics continues with Lionel Andrades:
I had written:The First Vatican Council infallibly taught: "...by Divine and Catholic Faith, all those things are to be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in Tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in Her Ordinary and Universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed." (See DENZ. 1792)
Lionel: t does not say here, specifically, that I have to believe that BOD is explicit and so relevant and an exception to the dogma.
It does not say that three Church Councils which gave us the dogma EENS and did not mention BOD were in heresy....
Introibo: The First Vatican Council was not enumerating everything taught by the universal and Ordinary Magisterium; it declared that when it teaches something to be believed of Divine and Catholic Faith it is infallible. The Universal and Ordinary Magisterium has so declared BOD and BOB without BOW to be of Faith. Therefore, it must be believed.
I cited theologian Van Noort:
"The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church. ...But if the Church could make a mistake in the manner alleged when it legislated for the general discipline, it would no longer be either a loyal guardian of revealed doctrine or a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life." (Dogmatic Theology 2:114-115) Therefore all of what the Church legislates with papal approval is infallible; it cannot be evil or in error.
Lionel: Yes before 1808. However an objective error was made by the Magisterium in 1949. This happened when it assumed that BOD etc referred to known cases.So they became relevant and exceptions to the interpretation of the dogma EENS according to Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center.
They were criticised for not saying that BOD etc referred to objective cases for them to relevant, in other words the Magisterium in 1949 wanted Fr. Leonard Feeney to say that he could see and know BOD cases for them to be exceptions to his traditional interpretation of EENS.
Introibo: So for Lionel, the Magisterium started teaching error in 1808! The Holy Ghost left the Church in error. Yet, these heretics continue to hold office as popes and bishops!
(continued below)
DeleteLionel: I accept BOD and BOB even though it is not an infallible teaching. The dogma is an infallible teaching.The dogma is de fide.However I make the distinction between explicit and implicit for us BOD and you do not.I accept theoretical BOD as a possibility.I reject BOD as being explicit.You wil not make a comment on this either way.
Introibo: It is infallible. The First Vatican Council tells us that the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium is as infallible as the extraordinary Magisterium. (I cited this above)
What teachings comprise the univerasal and Ordinary Magisterium?
According to theologian Ott: The promulgation by the Church (of dogma)may be made either in an extraordinary manner through a solemn decision of faith made by the Pope or a General Council (Iudicium solemne) or through the ordinary and general teaching power of the Church (Magisterium ordinarium et universale). The latter may be found easily in the catechisms issued by the Bishops." (See Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, TAN reprint from 1955, pg. 4)
Therefore, when the universal and ordinary Magisterium approves the Catechism of Trent (promulgated by St. Pius V) or The Catechism of St. Pius X (promulgated by that same saintly pontiff) teaches BOD and BOB, they are infallibly true. You deny this because you are a Feeneyite heretic.
Lionel:
Are you not a sedevacantist who believes the popes and their catechisms and Vatican Council II is in error?
Introibo: No. I believe that they are in error therefore they are not legitimate popes and V2 is not a legitimate council. It is a new and false religion. This was taught before V2 as something that could happen should the pope profess heresy as an individual, he would lose his office. All his official pronouncements would no longer be protected by the Holy Ghost since he would no longer be pope.
Proof:
St. Robert Bellarmine (1610) “A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.” De Romano Pontifice. II.30.
St. Alphonsus Liguori (†1787) “If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate.” Oeuvres Complètes. 9:232
For a complete list of pre-Vatican II theologians (as well as canon law citations) on loss of papal office, please see Traditionalists, Infallibility, and The Pope by Fr. Cekada at traditionalmass.org.
DeleteLionel: I include Pope Pius XII in this error but you excluded him and consider the other popes in error.
Introibo: BOD/BOB are not "errors." denial of them without needing BOW is an error. Pope Pius XII never taught atheist can go to Heaven like Frankie. He never signed a document claiming Protestant SECTS with their false teachings and pseudo-sacraments are a "means of salvation" He never kissed the blasphemous Koran like JPII as a sign of "respect and reverence" for false teachings about the false "god" Allah.
Lionel attempts to attack my syllogism:
Major premise: The Church cannot teach error.
Lionel:
The Holy Spirit cannot teach error. We humans can.
Introibo: Dear Lionel, your lack of understanding of Catholic theology combined with your illogical thinking is why you are a Vatican II sect Feeneyite!
Humans protected by the Holy Ghost cannot make errors in official teachings! Do you deny this of the Church? If so, your whole Feeneyite case falls apart. You claim BOW is necessary without exception. How do you know this is true? Cantate Domino was written by the bishops at the council of Florence (humans) and promulgated by Pope Eugene IV (human). How do you know they didn't make an error? Isn't the very definition of "infallibility" the incapacity to teach error because the Holy Ghost (Who cannot teach error) ensures that the Pope and Councils can't make errors too?
Minor premise: The Vatican II sect Catechism teaches numerous errors.
Lionel: The major one is shared by the sedes and trads.It can be re-interpreted and avoided in future. The present inference is irrational. We can avoid this inference.The same text then becomes rational.
Introibo: The errors regard the nature of the Church, the ability of false sects to effectuate salvation, etc. BOD and BOB are not errors!
Conclusion: The 1992 catechism did NOT come from the Catholic Church but from men who lost their office through the profession of heresy as the Church has always taught.
Lionel:
The traditional teachings in the Catechism ( 1992) are also those of the Council of Trent. They are inspired teachings.
There is one oversight which has come from human error and the sedes and trads are still not aware of it. The SSPX is still not aware of it.
Introibo: No, Trent never taught that Protestant sects were a means of salvation. Remember that ALL of what is in catechism is protected from error by the Holy Ghost, not just some of it, otherwise you wouldn't know what was true from what was false. You deny this truth, so you believe catechisms can teach error. I demonstrated the is not Church teaching.
You claim to believe ex cathedra teaching, yet deny the ex cathedra teaching of the First Vatican Council which affirms the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium.Lionel:
The infallible teaching did not mention any exceptions. It did not mention BOD. Check the text of Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441.
Introibo: Cantate Domino (which you don't understand in your private interpretation) is talking about those OUTSIDE the Church, who don't wish to belong to Her. BOD and BOB only apply to those WHO WISH TO BE UNITED WITH THE TRUE CHURCH. Cantate Domino wasn't about BOD/BOB nor does it exclude them.
Below I will issue a challenge to Lionel Andrades.
CHALLENGE TO LIONEL ANDRADES:
DeleteYou claim a heretic can be pope and catechisms promulgated by the pope can teach error. You further claim "I have cited specific references."
Therefore, give me a specific reference to ANY pre-Vatican II council, theologian, Canon law, or papal decree that teaches (a) Catechisms promulgated by the pope and/or catechisms promulgated by conferences/councils of bishops with formal papal approval can teach error. I'll be waiting for your response with specific references!
To my readers,
ReplyDeleteI'm sure you're wondering by now, "Why does Introibo continue to engage this "reason-challenged" Man, Lionel Andrades? We get it: he's bizarre"
It's precisely for this reason, I continue my decimation of his pathetic arguments. He's "Fenneyism on steroids." A Vatican II Feeneyite, the worst type. As I said before, the Feeneyites reject the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church, and therefore do not accept what Catholics must believe. Ironically, this puts them outside the Church as heretics even as they misunderstand Church teaching. I hope these comments serve to help you see the sheer insanity that is Feenyism, and the futile pseudo-arguments they propose. Here we go again!
Lionel: Vatican Council II is traditional on other religions and ecumenism.Yet this is not the position held by traditionalists and sedevacantists. They infer that they can see the dead, that the deceased now in Heaven, are part of their visible reality on earth and they are not aware of this irrationality.
Introibo: No, Lionel. This is not about seeing dead people. It is about irrationality: Yours and all Feeneyites; especially those who belong to the Vatican II sect.
Protestant SECTS are not a "means of salvation." As Pope Leo XIII taught in "Tametsi" (November 1, 1900) "Consequently, all those who wish to reach salvation outside the Church, are mistaken as to the way and are engaged in a vain effort." If one follows the teachings of Protestant sects (and we can see these sects Lionel!) you will be outside the Church and go Hell.
Of course, I can't see the dead but I can anticipate your stupidity: "But can we see anybody in Hell from following these sects?" It doesn't matter Lionel. It's against the Faith, just like saying "Christ COULD sin" is heretical and against the Faith, even if we can't see Him in 2015.
ReplyDeleteVatican II is traditional on ecumenism? "Traditional ecumenism" is an oxymoron like "intelligent Feeneyite." Lionel is fond of invoking Cantate Domino which says, "t 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." I don't see anything their about baptism with water, or no baptism of desire/blood. It clearly talks about nothing helping the non-Catholic achieve salvation, even "if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ" because they are OUTSIDE the Church and do not wish to enter. Those who receive BOB want to be united and die as Catholics within the Church.
HOWEVER, Vatican II states, "Unitatis redintegratio # 4:"On the other hand, Catholics must gladly acknowledge and esteem the truly Christian endowments which derive from our common heritage and which are to be found among our separated brothers and sisters. It is right and salutary to recognize the riches of Christ and the virtuous deeds in the lives of others who bear witness to Christ, even at times to the shedding of their blood."
Vatican II praises "our separated brothers and sisters" (i.e. heretics and schismatics) who "bear witness to Christ" "Even at times to the shedding of their blood." Protestants who bear witness to the false sects and shed their blood for it are praised by Vatican II. Doesn't THIS contradict Cantate Domino, Lionel?
(continued below)
Introibo: The First Vatican Council was not enumerating everything taught by the universal and Ordinary Magisterium;
ReplyDeleteLionel: Fine. So then there should not be a problem if you agree that not everything was being enumerated.
Introibo: There's a big problem for you!
Major premise: The First Vatican Council obliges us to believe everything taught both ex cathedra and by the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium as belonging to the Faith.
Minor Premise: The unanimous teaching of the theologians tells us the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium finds its expression in catechisms approved by the Holy See.
Conclusion: Whatever is taught in Catechisms approved by the Holy See is infallibly true--as per the teaching of the First Vatican Council
Major Premise: Everything taught in catechisms approved by the Holy See is infallibly true (see above)
Minor Premise: BOD and BOB is taught in catechisms approved by the Holy See.
Conclusion: Bod and BOB without BOW as sufficient for Church membership and salvation is infallibly true.If you deny this, you are NOT CATHOLIC!
Introibo: No. I believe that they are in error therefore they are not legitimate popes and V2 is not a legitimate council. It is a new and false religion.
ReplyDeleteLionel:So you believe they are in error. The catechisms are also in error. So why are you complaining when I say the same thing?
Introibo: For someone who's big on alleged distinctions of "visible and invisible" you can't distinguish between "true pope/false pope."
In other words, sedevacantists are not teaching that catechisms approved by the Holy See teach error. We are saying, in conformity of the unanimous consent of the theologians, the papal decree of Pope Paul IV "Ex Cum Apostolatus Officio", of 1559, and canon law that a heretic CANNOT be pope. Therefore, when the post-V2 popes professed heresy in their personal capacity they ceased to be (or never became) pope. Hence, there was no protection of the Holy Ghost from error since they were not members of the Church. YOU think a professed heretic can be pope! Therefore, the Holy Ghost failed the Church! That is blasphemy. The difference between our positions is very clear!
Lionel: I give specific references. I do not say in general they are in error.
Introibo: No you don't. You simply state "this is wrong" with no authoritative teaching of the Church to back it up.
Lionel: Also I know that the specific error to which I refer to can be corrected.
Introibo: Really?? You do?? Your "popes" can't figure it out but YOU can! I thought the popes were guided by the Holy Ghost to teach the laity and not vice-versa! The real Magisterium becomes you in your bizarre "Alice in Wonderland" world.
Introibo: For a complete list of pre-Vatican II theologians (as well as canon law citations) on loss of papal office, please see Traditionalists, Infallibility, and The Pope by Fr. Cekada at traditionalmass.org.
ReplyDeleteLionel:Fr. Cekada ? For him LG 16 is explicit and an exception to the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS. How can people now in Heaven, be exceptions to the Feeneyite version of the dogma?
And if the members of Fr. Leonard Feeney's communities in the USA do not accept BOD and BOB as being explicit; if they claim they cannot see these deceased now in Heaven, Fr. Cekada says they are in mortal sin!
Introibo: I was talking about HIS CITATIONS. You can look up the long list of theologians and even a papal decree that state a heretic can't be pope!
Second, you are in mortal sin against the faith (heresy) if you dent BOD and BOB. You admit we can't see anyone in Heaven with or without BOW. So how do we know any saint, such as St. Maria Goretti, is in Heaven? By Faith! You admitted that too! We know St. Victor is in Heaven without BOW and by BOB because the Church is infallible in Her Liturgy and teaches this truth. You deny the infallibility of the universal and Ordinary Magisterium as defined ex catherda by the First Vatican Council. The Holy Ghost prevents the teaching of error and He DOES see the dead!
Lionel: He cannot objectively, in his writings discern objective and subjective cases. Could he also be wrong on other issues?
Introibo: Absolutely. He can be wrong but the AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH HE CITES CANNOT BE WRONG!
Lionel: I have said that I accept BOD and BOB.I repeat I accept them.
ReplyDeleteIntroibo: You do not accept them as taught and understood by the Church. Do you believe that St. Victor is in Heaven without BOW because of BOB? If so, congratulations on your conversion! God bless! If not, you are a heretic.
Lionel: I accept them as being implicit. I reject them as being explicit. There will be no comment from you on this point.You will not make the distinction. Since for you these cases are explicit and so an exception to the dogma EENS.
Introibo: Here we go again. BOD and BOB have NOTHING to do with EENS, which simply states only members of the Catholic Church who die in the state of grace can be saved.
Those who receive the miracle of BOD and BOB are infused with Faith and Sanctifying Grace at the moment of death, and thereby go to Heaven as Catholics, like St. Victor.
YOU think a person is outside the Church unless they receive BOW, and thereby confuse the issue with EENS.
All saints are "implicit and invisible" Lionel! We know what we do on the authority of the CHURCH which you REJECT!
Introibo: Isn't the very definition of "infallibility" the incapacity to teach error because the Holy Ghost (Who cannot teach error) ensures that the Pope and Councils can't make errors too?
ReplyDeleteLionel:Yes only in ex cathedra teachings in agreement with tradition.
Introibo: Bingo! A denial of the Indefectibility of the Church and the infallible teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium as defined Ex Cathedra at The First Vatican Council!
Introibo: Humans protected by the Holy Ghost cannot make errors in official teachings! Do you deny this of the Church?
Lionel:Humans, popes, cannot make error ex cathedra on faith and morals.So there is no error on the issue of salvation and the dogma before 1808. After 1808 due to an oversight a particular doctrinal error has come into the Church. Also due to political pressure, humans ( popes, cardinals) overlooked the error or allowed it in the ordinary magisterium.
Introibo: More proof Lionel holds the heretical notion that the Holy Ghost can allow the Ordinary Magisterium to err! As if GOD can be overcome by "pressure groups"!
The teaching of BOD and BOB were taught by
Pope Innocent II "Apostolicam Sedem" (1143 AD)
The Council of Trent (1545-1563) --Decree on Justification
Catechism of Trent (1566)
St. Thomas Aquinas (died 1274) taught BOTH BOW and BOB/BOD without BOW
and St. Augustine, Doctor of the Church taught in the "City of God" (397 AD):
"Those also who die for the confession of Christ without having received the laver of regeneration are released thereby from their sins just as much as if they had been cleansed by the sacred spring of baptism. For He Who said, "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (John 3:5) by another statement made exceptions to this when He said no less comprehensively: "Everyone...that shall confess Me before men, I will confess before My Father Who art in Heaven (Matthew 10:32)"
So it all started by "pressure groups" in 1808 Lionel? St. Augustine clearly teaches BOB as an exception to BOW for salvation in 397 AD! He was made a saint and Doctor of the Church! How could this be if he was a heretic?
All these citations prove you are as ignorant of Church history as you are of theology!
I'm still waiting on citations to papal decrees, approved theologians, or councils that teach catechisms approved by the pope or by bishops with approval of the Holy See can teach error!!
VICTORY!! NOT ONE CITATION!
ReplyDeleteThis disposes of Lionel Andrades once and for all!
Introibo: Therefore, give me a specific reference to ANY pre-Vatican II council, theologian, Canon law, or papal decree that teaches
(a) Catechisms promulgated by the pope and/or catechisms promulgated by conferences/councils of bishops with formal papal approval can teach error.
Lionel:
I have given you the actual error.I have given you specific references of the error in Church documents in previous blog post.
Introibo: No. All you did was claim an error existed.
Lionel:It is Catholic teaching that when the pope speaks ex cathedra he is infallible. The infallibility of the pope is a dogma of the Church. Similarly extra ecclesiam nulla salus is a dogma of the Church it is an infallible teaching.
Introibo: It is also infallibly defined by that same Vatican Council that proclaimed the infallibility of the pope, ALSO proclaimed the Infallibility of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium which you deny!!!
Lionel: When a church document,sedevacantist or traditionalist says BOD and BOB are exceptions to the dogma,
Introibo: What dogma? BOD and BOB make you part of the Church so it's not an exception to EENS!!
Lionel:This is irratiional. It is also heretical. Since it contradicts the dogma on salvation and the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra.
Introibo: The Ordinary Magisterium Can't contradict the extraordinary because BOTH are infallible when declaring something must be believed. All the theologians and Doctors of the Church have taught BOTH and therefore explained how the two are compatible. One is the ordinary way( BOW) the other extraordinary (BOD/BOB) to obtain membership in the Church and salvation!!
Lionel:
The Church does not teach there is error in general in a catechism and so no document has to claim it does.If there is an error it would be corrected practically.
Introibo: Since catechisms are protected from error by the Holy Ghost they can contain NO mistakes whatsoever! God makes it so!
NO citations! I have proven that catechisms approved by the Holy Father cannot teach error as they are under the infallibility of the ordinary Magisterium.
They teach BOD and BOB without BOW which you REJECT!
Introibo: More proof Lionel holds the heretical notion that the Holy Ghost can allow the Ordinary Magisterium to err! As if GOD can be overcome by "pressure groups"!
Lionel: The pope is infallible only ex cathedra i.e in the the Extra Ordinary Magisterium .
Introibo: Then you deny the ex cathedra teaching of the First Vatican Council which proclaims the infallibility of the ordinary and universal Magisterium.
Lionel: Anyway even without their citation you reject the Catechism ( 1995) as a sedevacantist.
No. I reject a pseudo-catechism that was not approved by a true pope!
Lionel: You also reject Vatican Council II even though there is no official citation saying the Church could make error.
Introibo: The Church cannot make errors but the HIERARCHY CAN DEFECT!
Proof:St. Robert Bellarmine (1610) “A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.” De Romano Pontifice. II.30.
St. Alphonsus Liguori (†1787) “If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate.” Oeuvres Complètes. 9:232
VICTORY! (Continued)
ReplyDeleteLionel: Pope Pius XII made an objective error in the Boston Case. He mixed up what was invisible as being visible. I mentioned this in an earlier post. Is he a false pope for you?
Introibo: YOU think he made an error. He did not. So yes, he was a true pope. If you think he taught heresy you should be a sedevacantist!
Lionel: I repeat I do not deny BOD and BOB. I do not have to deny them since they are not relevant or exceptions to EENS.I accept them.
Introibo: No, you do not accept them as the Church teaches. You're right; they are not exceptions to EENS because they cause Church membership and grace to those that receive them without BOW.
Lionel: The pope is infallible only ex cathedra i.e in the the Extra Ordinary Magisterium .
Introibo: A direct denial of the Infallible (ex cathedra) teaching of the First Vatican Council!
Lionel:
I accept BOD and BOB. You have not been able to provide a single citation which says BOD and BOB refer to explicit cases, personally known and so are relevant to the dogma EENS or, are exceptions to all needing to formally convert with 'faith and baptism'.
Not a single citation.
Introibo: You do not accept BOD/BOW as the Church teaches. I will give you your citation below in my summary.
Introibo: For someone who's big on alleged distinctions of "visible and invisible" you can't distinguish between "true pope/false pope."
In other words, sedevacantists are not teaching that catechisms approved by the Holy See teach error. We are saying, in conformity of the unanimous consent of the theologians, the papal decree of Pope Paul IV "Ex Cum Apostolatus Officio", of 1559, and canon law that a heretic CANNOT be pope. Therefore, when the post-V2 popes professed heresy in their personal capacity they ceased to be (or never became) pope. Hence, there was no protection of the Holy Ghost from error since they were not members of the Church. YOU think a professed heretic can be pope! Therefore, the Holy Ghost failed the Church! That is blasphemy. The difference between our positions is very clear!
Lionel: So the bottom line is that you reject the Catechism ( 1992).
Introibo: No, the bottom line is you didn't understand what I wrote above. The 1992 "Catechism" is not a catechism because no pope approved it. You accept Antipope John Paul II, the Koran-kissing apostate who in Togo actually paid homage and worship to the "sacred snakes" of the pagans! He's no pope--but you think he is, Lionel. Were they "innocent mistakes"?
Lionel asked for a citation to an explicit case of BOD or BOB. An explicit case is St. Victor.
St. Victor is in the Roman Martyrology, approved as part of the liturgy by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582. St. Victor is in this book pertaining to the liturgy and it declares that he died AS A CATECHUMEN (i.e. unbaptized) because he was "baptized in his own blood." Had he died after water baptism he would not be considered a catechumen and would have not have died as one.
The Church cannot make anything in the liturgy that is an incentive to impiety. The Roman Martyrology is an outward sign of the liturgy and to claim that St. Victor somehow received BOW after BOB would make the liturgy an incentive to impiety, because people reading the plain meaning of the words would naturally think BOB alone was true. The Council of Trent infallibly decreed:
"Canon 7. If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety rather than stimulants to piety, let him be anathema."
Therefore, on the authority of Pope Gregory XIII, and the Council of Trent, I know St. Victor is in Heaven with BOB alone, just like the Roman Martyrology says. The Holy Ghost knows how St. Victor's soul got there, so He would not allow His Church to teach this error. No ability to "see the dead is necessary"
So there are my citations Lionel!
VICTORY SUMMATION
ReplyDelete1. Lionel Andrades claims to believe in BOD and BOB. In truth, he believes that BOW must follow them for salvation.
2. He confuses BOD and BOB as being "exceptions" to EENS. They are not since they make you a member of the Church same as BOW.
3. He denies the infallibility of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium (UOM) of the Church. Ironically, this infallibility of the UOM was declared ex cathedra by the First Vatican Council.
4. He believes that catechisms approved by true popes (whose teachings are protected from error by the UOM) nevertheless contain errors.
5. Popes, saints, and theologians have affirmed BOTH the absolute necessity of Baptism by water AND BOD/BOB.
Either they are schizophrenic, or they were referring to the ORDINARY way to enter the Church (water baptism) and Extraordinary means (BOD and BOB without water baptism)
6. St. Victor is but one example of a saint in Heaven without BOW because he's saved by BOB.
7. Lionel thinks we need to be able to "see the dead" to confirm St. Victor is in Heaven. We do not. The Holy Ghost will not allow an incentive to impiety in the liturgy or any falsehood at all to be taught.God sees St. Victor and will not allow His Church to teach a falsehood in the liturgy. So it is not necessary to "see St. Victor in Heaven without BOW." I gave citations to Pope Gregory XIII and the Council of Trent.
8. Lionel has no citations, and claims that popes and catechisms as well as the First Vatican council's infallible decree on the UOM can all teach error. This is a blasphemy against God Who protects His One True Church from error.
9. Lionel has claimed that we need to read Church documents making the distinction of "visible/invisible" and "explicit/implicit" so as to render Vatican II compatible with Tradition. Actually, I ask my readers to read all of our exchanges above making the distinction. "common sense/really stupid." If you read them with common sense you'll see the Catholic position. If you read them being really stupid, you'll end up a bizarre heretic like Lionel Andrades.
---Introibo
VICTORY ADDENDUM
ReplyDeleteTo my readers,
I would like to make a final comment on Lionel's "visible/invisible" "explicit/Implicit" alleged distinctions.
There are three things he refuses to acknowledge and/or is incapable of understanding.
Lionel made this telling comment in response to one of mine:
Introibo: The Ordinary Magisterium Can't contradict the extraordinary because BOTH are infallible when declaring something must be believed. All the theologians and Doctors of the Church have taught BOTH and therefore explained how the two are compatible. One is the ordinary way( BOW) the other extraordinary (BOD/BOB) to obtain membership in the Church and salvation!!
Lionel: All this is meaningless since you will not make the explicit-implicit distinction. Here is what you have said above with the distinction between invisible and visible made for you.
The Ordinary Magisterium ( which considers BOD, BOB and LG 16 invisible for us) Can't contradict the extraordinary ( which considers BOD, BOB )because BOTH are infallible when declaring something must be believed. All the theologians and Doctors of the Church have taught BOTH ( with BOD, BOB and LG 16 being invisible for us ) and therefore explained how the two are compatible.( only with BOD, BOB and LG 16 invisible for us and visible for God only ) One is the ordinary way( BOW which is invisible) the other extraordinary (with BOD/BOB being invisible ) to obtain membership in the Church and salvation!!
OK, now instead of the real distinction of "ordinary/extraordinary" he replces it with his bizarre "visible/invisible."
Here's what's wrong:
1. Hypothetical statements can be heretical.
To say, "God COULD lie" is heresy because it attributes a moral defect in God Who is all-perfect and cannot act against His Own Divine Essence. To posit the ability of God to lie is contrary to the Faith.
Therefore, when Vatican II says Protestant SECTS are a "means of salvation" it is heresy because it is against the Nature of Christ's One True Church. It admits of no exceptions.
2. His "visible/invisible" nonsense reduces Dogmas to matters of empirical verification.
It is a dogma that Mary was conceived without Original Sin (The Immaculate Conception defined in 1854 by Pope Pius IX).
This is by nature "invisible and implicit." How did Pope Pius IX know this about Mary? Did he see it happen in the womb of St. Anne? The Bible doesn't mention it. Most, but not all theologians taught Mary was Immaculately Conceived. How could they know? Could they see the state of Mary's soul when she was conceived? This is not a science experiment. We know it's truth on the authority of GOD THE HOLY GHOST who does not permit the pope or the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium to teach error.
If, however, I point out that the UOM teaches St. Victor died as a catechumen and went to Heaven without BOW because of BOB, Lionel thinks we need to "see the dead" to confirm it. For Lionel, the Holy Ghost can teach us only the things with which he agrees. So we can know about Mary's soul being without Original Sin without empirical verification, but not the soul of St. Victor. Why? His version of the "Church" is one wherein the UOM is fallible, and popes can be heretics.
He actually says Frankie is a heretic, then claims he remains pope, because he doesn't understand "visible/invisible" Hmmm....did John Paul II (with a doctorate in theology) understand it's wrong to worship false gods when he made and offering to the snake gods in Africa, or kissed the Koran in "respect and reverence?" Were those "innocent mistakes"? Or amybe it's not apostasy because the snake gods are "invisible and implicit" LOL!! (continued below)
ReplyDelete3. His dichotomy distorts his already distorted view of "Outside the Church No Salvation" (EENS)
Lionel thinks EENS is achieved only by BOW. All must enter the Church as members with BOW. He claims (wrongly) that this is infallible. Let's placate him and say this is correct. BOD and BOB cannot save without BOW IF this was true (I'm not saying it is), "visible/invisible" destroys the dogma in one of two ways.
If it's a hypothetical capable of being fulfilled (there are people saved without BOW known only to God) it makes it false that there is only one baptism--and one by water! People don't really need BOW because there could be invisible exceptions to the dogma. The dogma is thereby rendered as "BOW is absolutely necessary for salvation---unless it's not because there are invisible exceptions."
If Lionel is claiming it's a hypothetical NOT capable of being fulfilled (like making a "square circle") the hypothetical is superfluous. Why even mention a case that can't happen? It would also be heretical, because if everyone really needs BOW to be saved, then to posit BOB/BOD alone as sufficient (even as an hypothesis) it would be heretical--no different from saying "God COULD lie."
So there you have it folks! Read theology with the common sense of the Church and you'll be fine. Read theology with meaningless and stupid distinctions, and you may wind up changing your name to Lionel and starting a blog "eucharistandmission 2--The Insanity and Stupidity Continue--Visibly and Explicity"