I know that some of you were mid-conversation with Lionel Andrades, but he’s no longer allowed to comment on this blog. He was asked over a month ago to stop derailing posts with his repetitive off-topic rants about EENS and he chose to ignore that request.
As a courtesy to those of you who wish to continue the conversation with Lionel, you can visit his blog here.
Have I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth?
It’s tough being in charge. I’m glad it’s you.
Keep up the good work. 😉
Ever mindful, if you insist in bringing BOD into discussion like Lionel, be assured that you’ll be treated as he was. Louie’s blog isn’t a democracy!
And BTW, unlike you, Ever mindful, the rest of us doesn’t believe Lionel told the truth!
Mr. V has every right to establish guidelines for his blog. As commentators, we have a duty to respect those guidelines. It will be beneficial to all to stay on topic, get to the point as briefly as possible and be respectful. I agree with Mike and QuoVadis. Thank you, Louie!
E.m. & QVP.,
To clarify, Louie made no statement regarding Lionel’s position, yea or nay, but his behavior, (“derailing posts with his repetitive off-topic rants”). Any assumptions beyond that are not germane. Also QVP, be assured “the rest of us” are not all of one mind ;-).
No, I made a mistake there. I was going to say “many of us” in my statement. As for Louie’s position, I know he didn’t make a statement of BOD, but it is clear he is a firm supporter of the SSPX. That was why I was assuming he also believes in the SSPX position concerning BoD. But if I’m wrong, I’m sorry to have assumed so.
Thank you Louie, it’s good to have guidelines and helps people like me, who come here often, not to comment but to learn from your posts and the comments of so many here who are far better informed than I am.
I have learned so much and enjoy your posts and the comments a lot.
Perhaps you’ve found the same esoteric combination of mind-altering substances Mr. A appeared to be imbibing in. Seriously, that’s just a silly conclusion (that Louie was so troubled by the ‘truth’ of Lionel’s ‘position’ – as difficult to discern as such position was – that he simply banned him rather than face such difficult truth).
(Let’s take just one quote from Lionel here – a complaint about another good priest he believes to be “in error”: “He has never mentioned that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance can be accepted as **possibilities** but not **exceptions** to the dogma since they are not visible to us in real-time (emphasis mine).” Got that? Did that strenuous objection – repeated so many times – make sense, to anyone other than someone who, really, just can’t stand the notion of Baptism of Desire at some level? Indeed, this entire “position” – these whimsical, unclear, nonsensical objections – smack more of the vague, imprecise documents of Vatican Council II than of any Church doctrine. The question here begged is do you or do you not believe in the Catholic teaching of Baptism of Desire?)
If this (fear of truth) were indeed the reason behind the banning, said banning would have been hush-hush – like, say, the way Catholic Answers often does it – rather than broadcast to the world in a *dedicated post*.
Secondly, if Mr. Verrecchio has proven anything to the world in the last year or so, it’s that he follows Truth where it leads. Does losing one’s job for the Faith, embraced in full without compromise, establish any street cred with you? Have you ever been faced with such choices yourself?
In any case, what was made clear over a long period of time was that Mr. A was here for one purpose only had not the courtesy, sense, or charity to abide by the host’s rules. I, personally, say good riddance, though let’s pray for him. Error has no rights.
Sorry for the rant – sort of.
Here is at least one thing we’re betting EVERYONE here will agree on: 🙂 🙂
The above video was posted by our friend, S. Armaticus on December 5, 2014
on his Deus Ex Machina Blog
Plop, plop, fizz, fizz; oh, what a relief it is.
I never joined L in his dialogues, but I would point out that in theology, one distinguishes between the speculative order and the revealed order. The speculative order discusses what God can do with His Divine Power prescinding from every or some declaration of His Wll through revelation; the revealed order considers only what God has said He did, does, or will do.
In the speculative order the Saints have agreed that Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood are reasonable, since God’s power is not bound by the Sacraments.
In the revealed Order, God has not said anything about offering salvation to anyone except that he believe AND be baptized.
Perhaps that is what L was trying to say.
As far as catechetics or preaching or evangelization or apostolic works, it is licit only to proposed revealed truth, not speculative truths, otherwise we wander off into lulu land. And in Good catholic practice, in the past, Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood were never preached, they were only used to explain how believers could be saved in the misfortunate event of death before baptism by water; a case in which the circumstances preclude the use of the doctrine in evangelization or catechesis of non-Catholics or of the non-baptized believer.
Thanks for the kind word Indignus.
I in turn re-blogged this video from another excellent blog: The From Rome blog.
They are here: https://fromrome.wordpress.com/.
W/r/t the situation with Mr. L, I am with Mr. V. 🙂
Umm, no. If you would really read Lionel, he has basically denied BoD, because it supposedly constitutes an exception to EENS, and thus calls it a heresy. He didn’t even distinguish between the speculative and the revealed order. He has stated the SSPX to be wrong in believing BoD and defending it. And you’re a bit wrong concerning BoD and BoB, since St. Ambrose and St. Cyprian definitely preached on these two subjects.
Oh, No! Are we going to go at it again? Let’s stick to each topic as it comes up. The horse is DEAD.
Louie has consistently shown us he knows the meanings of the words he uses. “Rants” are defined as things that “exceed reasonable bounds: are excessive, beyond limits; wandering”.
The fact that several posters here can’t even agree on whether Lionel was FOR or AGAINST his OWN main point’ is a rather telling sign that Louie’s judgments and decisions were sound– and reason enough (for us anyway) to take Barbara’s advice, and bury this dead horse, — before “rubyroad” (and many others) feel the need for something stronger than Alka Seltzer.. 🙂 🙂
Good points there. (And I would suggest “wandering” as *the* most maddening element in the affair…)
Yet don’t you day breathe “Feeneyism” to either of that pair, or boy are you going to get it.
Ok – that is my last word on that subject.
ACT: Thank you. It is very frustrating to see every serious entry and comment here derailed by off-topic speculation and critiques of Catholic teaching.
Ambrose did speak of it in a homily, but he did not preach that one should put off water baptism out of confidence in baptismus flaminis…Baptism of Desire is an very bad translation which imputes salvation to one’s one will rather than HS’s grace…
I meant preach in that sense, not in the sense of talked about it after the death of such a one…it would be immoral in the first instance; Ambrose spoke, unique among the fathers, because he had an imperial audience and wanted to assuage their sorrow. And he did correctly, because St Paul puts acknowledgement of Christ and His resurrection as act of faith (not excluding others) as essentially the act in which a man is justified. Ambrose knew the deceased, so, we cannot judge the matter further. Yet it remains a speculation, since Our Lord never promised salvation to those who die with faith but having delayed the sacrament. If the priest insisted on the delay, then we have a very bad pastoral practice…
Visitors to this blog are invited to comment on Mr. V’s well-researched articles. We owe it to him to STAY ON TOPIC!! whether you agree or not. A derailed train never arrives at the intended destination.