Friday, July 28, 2017

After the 1949 Letter, all of us have to make the theoretical-practical distinction since the error has spread like the Arian heresy of the past





There are three Baptisms. Baptism of Water, Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood.

Of course I don´t make the theoretical-practical distinction just like the Council of Trent does not make this distinction or Saint Thomas Aquinas or Saint Pius X. don´t make these distinctions.

They did not confuse this issue.So it was not necessary for them to make the distinction.However after the 1949 Letter, all of us have to make the theoretical-practical distinction since the error has spread like the Arian heresy of the past once did.
Image result for Photos of  Arian heresy today




"Do you know someone who is a member of the Soul of the Church and who will be saved outside the Church or who has been saved as such?" Do you understand that these things are hidden to us? You can not look at someones Soul to know wether it is in a state of grace or not.

"Do you know someone who is a member of the Soul of the Church and who will be saved outside the Church or who has been saved as such?" Do you understand that these things are hidden to us? You can not look at someones Soul to know wether it is in a state of grace or not. Agreed.So why did you mention it with reference to EENS ? You know that BOD etc are not visible for us and it would only be known to God.Why are you still trying to defend the Letter?

For Fr.Hesse and Cardinal Ratzinger invisible cases of being saved in invincible ignorance are known. They exclude the baptism of water.This is an exceptional means of salvation. This is also the theology of Fr. Jean Marie Gleize of the SSPX. From here the trouble starts. Fr.Hesse says all Jews need to convert into the Church and then says there are exceptions(BOD etc). He then interprets LG 16 etc like he interprets BOD etc. So LG 16 becomes a visible rupture with Tradition and then he runs down the Council. If his premise was different his conclusion would be different.-Lionel Andrades

JULY 28, 2017

So objectively there were no exceptions to Feeneyite EENS and the so Letter of the Holy Office was a classic 'oops'

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/07/so-objectively-there-were-no-exceptions.html

JULY 28, 2017

If LG 16 refers to a hypothetical case it is not a rupture with EENS and so supports the old ecclesiology of the Church

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/07/if-lg-16-refers-to-hypothetical-case-it.html

JULY 28, 2017

You accept the Letter of the Holy Office.So this is your inference.It's nuts I agree

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/07/you-accept-letter-of-holy-officeso-this.html






No comments: