Bishop Athansius Schneider has said that we cannot know of any one saved without the baptism of desire(BOD) and then he says even if there are such cases they would be few.This is confusion.He needed to state clearly that there are no known cases of the baptism of desire-period. There are no baptism of desire cases in our reality.We cannot know of any such cases.The Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO) made a mistake. LOHO assumed that we could know of BOD, cases and so they were exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.
The baptism of desire should not have been mentioned with reference to extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) as being an exception.
It is not an exception.
Since it does not exist in our reality.
An exception to EENS must be visible and known, for it to be an exception.
Similarly Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Dr. Taylor Marshall needed to clarify that we cannot know of an LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 case in 2020.There are no known people saved as such. So they do not contradict the dogma EENS.The hierarchy, the ecclesiastics, made a human mistake on this point.
Schneider and Marshall needed to clarify that both their interpretation of Vatican Council II were wrong. They have been repeating the same mistake over the last few years .Vatican Council II really does not contradict Feeneyite EENS.
Brother Andre Marie MICM in his review of the interview does n ot make the Feeneyite-Cushingite distinction with reference to the baptism of desire, EENS and Vatican Council Ii. Cushingism is a reality in the Catholic Church.It exists, Most people use it.When I refer to vsisible or invisible baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance it is assumed to be visible by most Catholics. So they project them as exceptions to EENS, the past ecclesiology and an ecumenism of return.
I have brought up these points before and they are not mentioned either by Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Dr. Taylor Marshall in their interviews and public statements.-Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment