No difference between Charles Coulombe,Abp.Lefebvre,Fr.Karl Rahner and Card.Muller

Charles Coulombe does not realize that physically there are no baptism of desire (BOD) cases and  so he misinterprets Vatican Council II.Only theologically he rejects BOD with reference to extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).But he interprets LG 16, LG 14, UR 3 etc as referring to physically visible cases. He infers that they are non Catholics saved outside the Church who are seen in the flesh.So he concludes Vatican Council II is a rupture with EENS and so rejects it.It is a rupture with Tradition( Syllabus of Errors etc) for him.

So there is no difference between him, Archbishop Lefebvre, Fr.Karl Rahner and Cardinal Muller they all use the invisible BOD are visible exceptions to EENS reasoning.

-Lionel Andrades

DECEMBER 6, 2017

Charles Coulombe, Brother Andre Marie MICM and Brother Thomas Augustine MICM have been discussing the baptism of desire with reference to justification and salvation when there are no physically visible cases

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/12/charles-coulumbe-brother-andre-marie.html

 DECEMBER 6, 2017

Charles Coulombe discusses the baptism of desire as if there are known cases in our reality

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/12/charles-coulombe-discusses-baptism-of.html

DECEMBER 6, 2017

Charles Coulombe could have said that there are no physically visible cases of the baptism of desire

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/12/charles-coulombe-could-have-said-that.html

http://catholicism.org/author/coulombe