Let us assume the sedevacantist position is correct -- would the rest of the Catholic bishops, by recognizing a false bishop of Rome, be putting themselves outside of the Church? Most, if not all, sincerely believe that he is the pope, and there are ways to make sure he has been validly elected. (Maybe this is a moot point, since many sedevacantists believe that the Catholic bishops are outside of the Church because they are heretics?)
(I haven't had to think about sedevacantism too much or study the arguments of sedevacantists up until now, but I recently became acquainted with a sedevacantist through FB. I am not sure how to proceed with that relationship.)
Some Sedevantists:
SSPV
Aquinas Catholic Website
Gerry Matatics
Traditional Latin Mass Resources
Responses:
SSPX - Sedevacantism
Dominique Boulet, SSPX
Concerning a Sedevacantist Thesis
Br. André Marie of St. Benedict Center
CAI
7 comments:
Friday, July 1, 2011
SEDEVACANTISTS REJECT COUNCIL OF TRENT BAPTISM OF DESIRE AND ASSUME IT IS NOT HYPOTHETICAL
First they wrote off the baptism of desire of Trent, then they assume it is real and not hypothetical for us, and then, anyone who affirms the baptism of desire is called a heretic.
For centuries the Church knew that the baptism of desire was not known to us in particular cases it was accepted in principle only. It could only be accepted in principle; it was not repeatable like the baptism of water. We could not administer the baptism of desire and so it did not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. (Cantate Domino, Council of Trent 1441).
The Most Holy Family Monastery, New York sedevacantists for whom a defacto-known- to- us- in- the- present- times- baptism of desire is central to their media apostolate, accuse Catholics of being in heresy since they affirm the baptism of desire. The sedevacantists conclude this must contradict the dogma Cantate Domino.
It is true to reject an ex cathedra dogma is a mortal sin and there are Catholics who have rejected the dogma Cantate Domino, extra ecclesiam nulla salus either through ignorance or misinformation or fear of persecution. So the Dimond brothers are correct on this aspect of the truth.
However when one affirms the baptism of desire, it is not a rejection of Cantate Domino, since the baptism of desire is always a concept for us. It is hypothetical. It can only be de facto for God. We do not know a single case in the present times or in the past. No one says there were four baptism of desire cases in Rome last month, or three in New York last year.
Since we do not know of a single case how can it contradict the dogma which says everyone must be an explicit member of the Catholic Church for salvation?
The baptism of desire and invincible ignorance cases are implicit and so we do not know any such person saved implicitly.
The Council of Trent mentions the baptism of desire but does not claim that it is defacto, explicitly known to us as the MHFM would imply, infer and then assume.
CONTINUED
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/06/council-of-trent-does-not-say-if.html#links
Council II or the Fr.Leonard Feeney Case has changed this teaching.When done intentionally this is a sin.
There are others who interpret the Catechism as a break from Tradition and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. When done intentionally it is a rejection of the dogma and heresy.
A Catholic who has been informed many times and still rejects Cantate Domino on his website or on a public forum is in public mortal sin. A person in public mortal sin is not to receive the Eucharist until he has received absolution at the Confessional and removed the public scandal.
One cannot for example promote abortion or have an abortion because of financial or other worldly interests. One cannot commit a mortal sin, e.g deny an ex cathedra dogma, to protect ones life style, job, reputation or other worldly interests.
According to Veritatis Splendor a mortal sin is a mortal sin and the external act indicates the internal intention. This is very different from some of the misinterpretations of mortal sin based on the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
According to Canon Law a priest in mortal sin is not to offer Mass in that condition. Similarly a lay man in public mortal sin should not commit a sacrilege.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/07/sedevacantists-reject-council-of-trent.html#links
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
COUNCIL OF TRENT DOES NOT SAY IF THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS DEFACTO OR DE JURE KNOWN TO US
The Council of Trent mentions the baptism of desire but does not say if it is de facto or de jure known to us. Just about everyone, from the Most Holy Family Monastery to the Urbaniana, Angelicum, Gregorian and other Pontifical Universities in Rome assume, its is de facto known to us in the present times.
COUNCIL OF TRENT
By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
Canon IV-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema."-Council of Trent
___________________________________
American sedevacantists imply the Baptism of desire is de facto known to us in the present times.
Those who believe in this latter idea (that baptism of desire can apply to Jews or Muslims, etc.) would have to immediately abandon it upon seeing any of the infallible definitions on Outside the Church There is No Salvation. If not, they are definitely heretics who have been automatically excommunicated from the Church. One could not reasonably believe that members of non-Catholic religions being saved is compatible with Outside the Church There is No Salvation.
- page 167, The Dogma that there is No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church and without the Catholic Faith and refuting baptism of desire from the website of the Most Holy Family Monastery,NY
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/06/council-of-trent-does-not-say-if.html
Monday, June 27, 2011
WHAT IS THE CREDIBILITY OF URBANIANA PONTIFICAL UNIVERSITY, ROME ?
The Rector and professors at the Urbaniana Pontifical University, Rome are teaching the same error as the sedevacantists Most Holy Family Monastery (MHFM), USA. They both imply that those saved with the baptism of desire are de facto known to us in the present times so it contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The sedevancantists reject the baptism of desire completely. The MHFM believes it’s an exception to Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441, on extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Sandra Mazzolini a professor at Urbaniana rejects Cantate Domino as it was interpreted for centuries. She also believes that those saved with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance are known to us in the present times. So it contradicts the dogma Cantate Domino.
The sedevacantists affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Urbaniana denies it. They both wrongly assume that cases of the baptism of desire are as real as the baptism of water.
They both believe that the dogma is opposed by a baptism of desire which is defacto, real and known to us personally .They are united in the error here.
Yet a student at Urbaniana University could reason out that the baptism of desire is only known to God. It is de facto for God only. We do not know a single case. We can only accept it in principle (de jure).It is always hypothetical, a concept for us.
How can what is hypothetical for us contradict Cantate Domino on everyone explicitly needing to be a formal member of the Catholic Church for salvation?
Sandra Mazzolini is promoting her book in Italian in which she implies non Catholics are de facto saved with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance. These cases it is implied are known to us in the present times. So she assumes this contradicts the ‘rigorist interpretation’ of the centuries-old dogma.
She offers a course for students at the Urbaniana which teaches that the dogma extra eccleisam nulla salus has ‘developed’. This claim is made in the Urbaniana University Handbook (Kalendarium).
It has ‘developed’ for her in Vatican Council II as it has for the Urbaniana Rector, since Vatican Council II says non Catholics could be saved in invincible ignorance with a good conscience, by the Word of God, in partial communion with the Church. All these examples according to Urbaniana, refer to de facto cases known in the present time.
Yet it is common sense that we do not personally know any of these cases. They are hypothetical for us. Something we can only accept in principle, so how can they contradict Cantate Domino?
Is this what is being taught to Catholic students and seminarians at this Pontifical University approved by the Congregation for Catholic Education? Yes.
The university assumes there is text in Vatican Council II which contradicts the dogma. There is no text.
The Catholic Church has not retracted the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus . For centuries the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance were known and it was not an issue. It was not made into a new doctrine to change, reject or ‘develop’ extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The dogma is in accord with Ad Genets 7, Catechism of the Catholic Church N.845, 846.
Dogmas and doctrines are being changed in Pontifical Universities - in this case, with a common sense error.
-Lionel Andrades
Saturday, June 25, 2011
THE GREAT BAPTISM OF DESIRE HOAX : FROM THE MOST HOLY FAMILY MONASTERY, CATHOLIC ANSWERS,USCCB,PONTIFICAL UNIVERSITIES AND SEMINARIES TO NUMEROUS OTHERS TODAY
I can infer that the baptism of desire is unknown to us since, it is only accepted in principle and is never defacto known in the present times in particular cases.
1. Only Jesus knows who is saved with the Baptism of desire.
2. We do not personally know any case in the past, present or future. We cannot say we know someone saved with the baptism of desire. None of us knows any person.
3. Since the baptism of desire is a concept, something accepted in principle, it cannot be real and repeatable like the baptism of water.
4. Since we can only accept it in principle(de jure)it does not conflict with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the Church there is no salvation).The dogma Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441 indicates all non Catholics need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation. There are no exceptions since the baptism of desire or blood cannot be administered.
5. So everyone with no exception needs the baptism of water with Catholic Faith to go to Heaven and avoid Hell. If there is anyone saved with the baptism of desire it will be known to God only.
6. The Catholic Church has not retracted the dogma outside the church there is no salvation (Cantate Domino, Bull Unam Sanctam, Fourth Lateran Council) which is in accord with Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II ( all need baptism for salvation), Catechism of the Catholic Church 846( the Church is like a door in which all enter), 845 (The Church is like the only Ark of Noah that saves in the Flood and God wants all to be united in the Catholic Church), Dominus Iesus 20 etc.
7. So when the sedevacantists Most Holy Family Monastery (MHFM) claim that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma Cantate Domino it is irrational. For them the baptism of desire is not just a concept but a de facto, visible reality like the baptism of water. This is a hoax.
8. Similarly when the liberals who oppose the MHFM say Lumen Gentium 16 (on invincible ignorance) contradicts the dogma it is irrational. They (USCCB, Notification on Fr. Peter Phan etc) imply that we know cases in the present times saved in invincible ignorance. So for them it contradicts the dogma Cantate Domino. Yet we know that those saved in invincible ignorance can only be a concept, a principle we accept. It’s a hoax (by Catholic Answers, EWTN etc) to suggest that those saved in invincible ignorance, unknown to us, contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II.
-Lionel Andrades
E-mail:lionelandrades10@gmail.com
Friday, June 24, 2011
WILL GERRY MATATICS LEAVE SEDEVACANTISM ?
Gerry Matatics has communicated to us that he is in full agreement on sedevacantism and the salvation dogma. That is to say, Gerry holds the sedevacantist position and also agrees that is the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church that the Catholic Faith and the Sacrament of Baptism are absolutely necessary for salvation with no exceptions for “baptism of desire”- from the website of the Most Holy Family Monastery.
I Lionel Andrades wish to communicate to all that I am ‘in full agreement with the salvation dogma’. I agree to the ‘infallible teaching of the Catholic Church that Catholic Faith and the Sacrament of Baptism are absolutely necessary for salvation’, and there are no ‘ exceptions for ’ a de facto, known to us in the present times, “baptism of desire”.
However I am a member of the Catholic Church,faithful to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI and his predecessor popes and I am not a sedevacantist
In 2005 apologist Gerry Matatics , Founder and President, Biblical Foundations International http://www.gerrymatatics.org/ ,did not know there was an alternative.
Now I am saying that the baptism of desire in its very nature is not an exception to the dogma, since it cannot be defacto known to us ever ; we do not know anyone on earth saved with the baptism of desire ,invincible ignorance etc.
De facto every adult with no exception needs to enter the Catholic Church with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation.
De jure in principle, as a possibility known only to God, a non Catholic can be saved with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance in the manner God wants.We do not know any de facto cases. So it does not contradict the dogma Cantate Domino.
-L.A
Peter and Michael Dimond call people heretics: for the MHFM baptism of desire is de facto knowable and contradicts Cantate Domino
Commonsense says the baptism of desire in its nature is always known only in principle, de jure, so how can it contradict Pope John Paul II, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and numerous others charged as heretics and apostates.
Peter and Michael Dimond, sedevacantists of the Most Holy Family Monastery, NY are calling people heretics on their website. Since they believe that the baptism of desire is de facto and known personally and so contradicts Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, the ex cathedra dogma on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The baptism of desire is not like the baptism of water which is real, de facto, tangible, visible and repeatable. Everybody needs it for salvation and there are no exceptions. The baptism of desire is not an exception, to everybody needing the baptism of water. Since the baptism of desire is known only to God .It is not de facto and real for us.
The baptism of desire does not contradict the dogma as the MHFM state in their book on this subject and in comments all over their website.
Those who believe in this latter idea (that baptism of desire can apply to Jews or Muslims, etc.) would have to immediately abandon it upon seeing any of the infallible definitions on Outside the Church There is No Salvation. If not, they are definitely heretics who have been automatically excommunicated from the Church. One could not reasonably believe that members of non-Catholic religions being saved is compatible with Outside the Church There is No Salvation.
- page 167, The Dogma that there is No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church and without the Catholic Faith and refuting baptism of desire
They have been informed. These posts have been sent to them. If they persist would it not be calumny and scandal? A mortal sin?
Saturday, June 18, 2011
MOST HOLY FAMILY MONASTERY SEDEVACANTISTS CONSIDER BAPTISM OF DESIRE DE FACTO AND KNOWABLE IN THE PRESENT TIME
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/06/most-holy-family-monastery.html
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
SEDEVACANTISTS SLIP ON BOD UNDERSTANDING AND CRITICIZE POPE JOHN PAUL II
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/06/sedevanatists-slip-on-bod-understanding.html#links
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
MHFM SLIPS ON BOD DEFINITION AND CRITICIZES SSPX
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/06/mhfm-slips-on-bod-definition-and.html
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
SEDEVACANTISTS SLIP ON BOD UNDERSTANDING AND CRITICIZE POPE JOHN PAUL II
It’s a common error on the website of Peter and Michael Dimond. They assume that the Baptism of desire is de facto known to us in the present times. They make this error and criticize the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX). Here they assume that Pope John Paul II was wrong.
Pope John Paul II was correct there are those saved explicitly and others implicitly through Jesus and the Church.
How?
Subject: Hi-EWTN exposed?
Hi,
Who are you ? How can you say all of these things about the church and the Pope and EWTN? It is all so shocking? Why are you saying these things?
Judy
MHFM: … Here’s just one heresy from … John Paul II. This statement denies defined Catholic dogma. Again, this is just one of many:
John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio (#10), Dec. 7, 1990: “The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church.”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, dogmatic Athanasian Creed, 1439: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity… But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence ,dogmatic Athanasian Creed is saying that everyone with no exception needs to be an explicit member of the Church to go to Heaven.
Pope John Paul too is saying that the ‘universality of salvation is granted to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church’. This is the same message as the Council of Florence.
Pope John Paul II also refers to those saved implicitly (baptism of desire, invincible ignorance etc), as taught in Mystici Corporis, Council of Trent, Vatican Council II etc. They also are saved. We must remember that those saved implicitly can only be known to God. They can never de facto known to us as we know the baptism of water. They can never be real and known and so they do not contradict the Council of Florence. Everyone explicitly needs to enter the Church for salvation and there are no known exceptions on earth. If there are any exceptions (invincible ignorance etc) it will be known only to God.
Those saved explicitly refer to de facto cases that we can know of. Those saved implicitly refer to de jure cases that we can only accept in principle and can only know as a concept.
Since one is de facto and the other de jure it does not contradict the Principle on Non Contradiction.
So there is no contradiction between the statements of Pope John Paul II and Pope Eugene IV.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/06/sedevanatists-slip-on-bod-understanding.html
Post a Comment