 | ||
 | Lionel Andrades
@AndradesLionel
| 24 ago |
@paulkramer0 Fr.Kramer if you have to asked this question you have not been reading or not understood so much of mail I have semt you.
| ||
| Lionel Andrades
@AndradesLionel
| 24 ago |
@paulkramer0 I don't know from where to begin.
| ||
| Lionel Andrades
@AndradesLionel
| 24 ago |
@paulkramer0 I affirm that the baptism of desire and blood are invisible for us humans so they are not exceptions to the dogma EENS.
| ||
| Lionel Andrades
@AndradesLionel
| 24 ago |
@paulkramer0 I affirm that since BOD and BOB are not explicit they do not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
| ||
| Lionel Andrades
@AndradesLionel
| 24 ago |
@paulkramer0 So I accept implicit for us BOD and BOB and also the rigorist interpretation of the dogma EENS according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
| ||
| Lionel Andrades
@AndradesLionel
| 24 ago |
@paulkramer0 For me this is the centuries old interpretation of EENS in harmony with Vatican Council II. LG 16 does not contradict EENS.
| ||
|
@AndradesLionel
| |
@paulkramer0 So the ecclesiiology of Vatican Council II has not changed. It is Feeneyite. Vatican Council II is Feeneyite.
| ||
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment