The Letter of the Holy Office makes it an issue. It considers the baptism of desire an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Supporters of Fr.Leonard Feeney unfortunately still use the irrational inference .It can be seen in their interpretation of Vatican Council II http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/supporters-of-frleonard-feeney.html#links
Archbishop Lefebvre made a mistake with the Letter of the Holy Office and carried it over into Vatican Council II ttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/archbishop-lefebvre-made-mistake-with.html#links
Where does the Letter of the Holy Office make a factual error ? http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/where-does-letter-of-holy-office-make.html#links
Implicit desire is always implicit. Did the Holy Office assume it was explicit? http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/implicit-desire-is-always-implicit-did.html#links
I talk in terms of visible and invisible only because Catholics in general are unaware that they are using these terms ttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/i-talk-in-terms-of-visible-and.html#links
Objectively we cannot see a baptism of desire case: the Holy Office 1949 implies we can http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/objectively-we-cannot-see-baptism-of.html#links
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment