Fr.R:
As you say in sound classical logic, “nego maiorem”.
Lionel:
What do you negate ?
1.Do you negate that we cannot see the dead
who are in Heaven ?
who are in Heaven ?
2.Do you negate that these deceased in Heaven
are visible exceptions to Fr.Leonard Feeney ?
are visible exceptions to Fr.Leonard Feeney ?
3.Do you negate an empirical, objective
observation that the deceased are not visible
observation that the deceased are not visible
to us on earth?
When are you going to comment on this?
_______________________________
Fr.R:
I don’t. Instead I negate that all these things are
consequences of the supposed errors in the magisterial
consequences of the supposed errors in the magisterial
documents.
Lionel:
1.Do you negate that we cannot see the dead
who are in Heaven ?
who are in Heaven ?
2.You affirm that these deceased in Heaven
are not visible exceptions to Fr.Leonard
are not visible exceptions to Fr.Leonard
Feeney ?
3.You agree that empirically, objectively the
deceased are not visible to us on earth?
deceased are not visible to us on earth?
1. The magisterial texts I have quoted do not
infer that we can see the dead who are
infer that we can see the dead who are
in Heaven?
2.The magisterial texts do not affirm that the
deceased in Heaven are visible exceptions
deceased in Heaven are visible exceptions
to Fr.Leonard Feeney?
___________________________________________________
Fr.R:
I don’t. Instead I negate that all these things are
consequences of the supposed errors in the
consequences of the supposed errors in the
magisterial documents.
1.Do you negate that we cannot see the dead
who are in Heaven ? I don’t
who are in Heaven ? I don’t
2.You affirm that these deceased in Heaven
are not visible exceptions to
are not visible exceptions to
Fr.Leonard Feeney ? I don’t know the position
of Fr. Feeney. For me is not the question.
of Fr. Feeney. For me is not the question.
Is irrelevant.
3.You agree that empirically, objectively the
deceased are not visible to us on earth?
deceased are not visible to us on earth?
Yes, of course
1. The magisterial texts I have quoted do not
infer that we can see the dead who are
infer that we can see the dead who are
in Heaven? They don’t, of course. That’s the
point. “Nego maiorem”.
point. “Nego maiorem”.
2.The magisterial texts do not affirm that the
deceased in Heaven are visible exceptions
deceased in Heaven are visible exceptions
to Fr.Leonard Feeney???? Irrelevant.
________________________________________
Fr:R:
2.You affirm that these deceased in Heaven are not visible
exceptions to Fr.Leonard Feeney ? I don’t know the position
of Fr. Feeney. For me is not the question. Is irrelevant.
exceptions to Fr.Leonard Feeney ? I don’t know the position
of Fr. Feeney. For me is not the question. Is irrelevant.
Lionel:
Let me explain. This question is central to what I
have been writing.
have been writing.
Fr.Leonard Feeney like the saints and Church
Fathers held that very one needed to enter the
Church for salvation. His traditional position
was that all needed to be formal members of the
Catholic Church to avoid Hell.
Fathers held that very one needed to enter the
Church for salvation. His traditional position
was that all needed to be formal members of the
Catholic Church to avoid Hell.
For him those who died without 'faith and baptism',
Catholic Faith and the baptism of water were
oriented to Hell.The baptism of desire was a
possibility for him but it would be followed by the
baptism of water.There were no exceptions to the
baptism of water.
Catholic Faith and the baptism of water were
oriented to Hell.The baptism of desire was a
possibility for him but it would be followed by the
baptism of water.There were no exceptions to the
baptism of water.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 says Fr.Leonard
Feeney and the St. Benedict Center are wrong since
a person can die in invincible ignorance or with
implicit desire (for the baptism of water) and be
saved.So for the Letter of the Holy Office there
were exceptions for the baptism of water. There
were known replacements for the baptism of
water i.e baptism of desire etc without the
baptism of water.
Feeney and the St. Benedict Center are wrong since
a person can die in invincible ignorance or with
implicit desire (for the baptism of water) and be
saved.So for the Letter of the Holy Office there
were exceptions for the baptism of water. There
were known replacements for the baptism of
water i.e baptism of desire etc without the
baptism of water.
For them there is salvation outside the Church
and so every one does not have to be a formal
member of the Catholic Church to be saved.
and so every one does not have to be a formal
member of the Catholic Church to be saved.
You Fr.R. have affirmed here that the deceased
who are now saved in Heaven with the baptism
of desire etc are not visible to us on earth.
We cannot see the deceased on earth.
who are now saved in Heaven with the baptism
of desire etc are not visible to us on earth.
We cannot see the deceased on earth.
So the question is : if we do not know any such
case on earth how can the baptism of desire
and being saved in invincible ignorance be
case on earth how can the baptism of desire
and being saved in invincible ignorance be
exceptions to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard
Feeney? For them to be exceptions they would
have to be known and visible. Zero cases of
something are not exceptions said the apologist
John Martigioni.
Feeney? For them to be exceptions they would
have to be known and visible. Zero cases of
something are not exceptions said the apologist
John Martigioni.
For him the baptism of desire and being saved in
invincible ignorance are not exceptions to extra
ecclesiam nulla salus.
invincible ignorance are not exceptions to extra
ecclesiam nulla salus.
For you they are exceptions?
-Lionel Andrades
Do you negate an empirical, objective
observation that the deceased are not
visible to us on earth? When are you
going to comment on this?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/09/do-you-negate-empiricalobservation that the deceased are not
visible to us on earth? When are you
going to comment on this?
-objective.html#links
No comments:
Post a Comment