http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bIQ4xBJcFw&feature=share&list=PLA7FBE5C798A59B9B
Monday, September 9, 2013
Peter and Michael Dimond expose on Pope Francis
http://youtu.be/EOJo310ASsc
Vatican Council II (Nostra Aetate 4) says the Church is the new people of God. Catholics are the new Chosen People.Pope Francis holds the Jewish Left, Masonic position and says Jews are still the Chosen People.
Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7) says all need 'faith and baptism' for salvation.Pope Francis thinks people of other religions are saved without having to convert into the Catholic Church?. This too would be a Masonic position.
The video above ,professionally done, is disturbing.
Pope Francis is our pope.However like Pope Benedict XVI, who under political pressure said Jews do not have to convert in the present times,Pope Francis is contradicting the defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Vatican Council II (AG 7) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846.This is heresy, a mortal sin.The two popes are contradicting Jesus and the Bible. It is also a break with the teachings of Pope John Paul II ( CDF,Notification on Fr.Jacques Dupuis S.J, Dominus Iesus 20 etc).
His views here are also a contradiction of his statement in May this year when he said, Jesus cannot be found outside the Catholic Church.
Pope Francis is our pope.However like Pope Benedict XVI, who under political pressure said Jews do not have to convert in the present times,Pope Francis is contradicting the defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Vatican Council II (AG 7) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846.This is heresy, a mortal sin.The two popes are contradicting Jesus and the Bible. It is also a break with the teachings of Pope John Paul II ( CDF,Notification on Fr.Jacques Dupuis S.J, Dominus Iesus 20 etc).
His views here are also a contradiction of his statement in May this year when he said, Jesus cannot be found outside the Catholic Church.
-Lionel Andrades
Peter and Michael Dimond still hold on to visible to us baptism of desire : video considers popes and saints as being in error
http://youtu.be/Fey41Swoc54
Michael and Peter Dimond assume the baptism of desire is explicit and visible to us so they condemn St.Alphonsus Ligouri as a heretic
Most Holy Family Monastery still assume that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Peter and Michael Dimond still mulling over question
VATICAN WEBSITE CARRIES THE VIRUS : SEDEVACANTISTS AND THE CONGREGATION FOR THE CLERGY SEE VATICAN COUNCIL II AS RUPTURE WITH THE PAST
Michael and Peter Dimond assume the baptism of desire is explicit and visible to us so they condemn St.Alphonsus Ligouri as a heretic
Michael and Peter Dimond on the Most Holy Family Monastery website still assume that the baptism of desire is relevant to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ,making the error of Cardinal Richard Cushing in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case.
The Sedevacantists write:
In fact, St. Alphonsus’ explanation of BOD was heretical, as the article proves.Consider the facts: his explanation is without a doubt contrary to the teaching of the Council of Trent that everyone must be ‘born again.’
Lionel:
Yes every one must be born again in 2013 with the baptism of water and Catholic Faith and there are no known exceptions this year. We do not know any case of the baptism of desire in 2013.So it does not contradict the Council of Trent. If there was a visible known case then it would contradict Trent.
MHFM
That’s why the BOD heretics will ignore, rather than attempt to address, what is proven in the article.He misunderstood Trent and his misreading led him into a false explanation.
Lionel:
Yes all must have faith in the Trinity and the Incarnation and be members of the Catholic Church for salvation and there are no known exceptions this year. The baptism of desire is known only to God and so it never was considered an exception before Cushingism emerged in the Catholic Church.
MHFM:
Lionel:
It has been a long time since I have presented the 'evidence' on the baptism of desire to the Most Holy Family Monastery. If they continue with their 'error' it would be a lie.It would be a sin.
The popes and saints only refer to the baptism of desire. They do not state that the baptism of desire is explicit and visible for us to be an exception to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
Neither does Vatican Council II or any other magisterial document refer to exceptions to the dogma or name any exceptions.So the Magisterium, in magisterial documents, does not teach that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma. Yet this is wrongly assumed by cardinals, bishops, priests, traditionalists and liberals and the sedevantists MHFM.
The popes and saints only refer to the baptism of desire. They do not state that the baptism of desire is explicit and visible for us to be an exception to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
Neither does Vatican Council II or any other magisterial document refer to exceptions to the dogma or name any exceptions.So the Magisterium, in magisterial documents, does not teach that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma. Yet this is wrongly assumed by cardinals, bishops, priests, traditionalists and liberals and the sedevantists MHFM.
The same error of the sedevantists MHFM is being held by other traditionalists.
The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Fr.Leonard Feeney's communities, affirm the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and say there is no baptism of desire.
Then on their website they have provided a definition of the baptism of desire which includes the baptism of water.
However they assume that Vatican Council II is an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus indicating that the baptism of desire being saved in invincible ignorance etc are explicit and known to us to be exceptions.
Similarly they say that if you accept that even one case of a person being saved without the baptism of water it is a rejection of the dogma on salvation. This is indicates they see the baptism of desire etc as explicit and visible to us.
If the baptism of desire is considered implicit and known only to God then there would be no known exception to the dogma,not even one case. Implicit baptism of desire would be compatible with the literal interpretation of the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.It does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction.
Similarly traditionalists priests with the SSPX claim they accept the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and accept the baptism of desire also which for them is explicit.This is contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction. How can all need to enter the Church in 2013 but some do not ?
Similarly the liberals in the International Theological Commission reject the literal interpretation of the dogma and assume that the baptism of desire etc is explicit and known to us. So these cases for the ITC, using Cushingism, indicate that Fr.Leonard Feeney was wrong. They would also be saying that the cardinal who issued the Letter of the Holy Office made a factual error. Since they interpret the Letter of the Holy Office using Cushingism.
Similarly apologists Fr.Brian Harrison and Robert Sungenis assume that the baptism of desire is an exception to the literal and traditional interpretation of the dogma.The same error is made by EWTN, Catholic Answers, Catholics United for the Faith, the Fatima Network etc.This error is the basis for liberalism, in the Catholic Church.It needs to be corrected by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, whose officials have made the same error of Cushingism, in public.
-Lionel Andrades
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
