Peter and Michael Dimond did not tell Nick Santusuossa that there are no literal cases of the baptism of desire in our reality.We cannot meet or see someone saved with the baptism of desire in Newton's time and space.They do not want to discuss this. They remove all comments.
Instead on their website they post only comments praising the MHFM for supporting the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
When Nick Santousossa cites the popes who cited the baptism of desire Peter Dimond says that there is no baptism of desire, in the sense that the BOD cannot be an exception to EENS.Correct. But he does not make the distinction between explicit and implicit, visible and invisible, defacto and in theory baptism of desire.For most people the baptism of desire is explicit.
When Nick refers to the baptism of desire he is always referring to an implicit, invisible and in theory only case in reality.Always.But he may not know this.
Instead Peter Dimond reviews Church texts and present arguments which support Feeneyite EENS and then rejects the baptism of desire.He could be rejecting the baptism of desire also as a hypothetical possibility known only to God.
Why do they not want to discuss this issue with me or post my comments?
Since they have interpreted Vatican Council II with the same error, the same irrationally as the liberals and Lefebvrists and Thucs.
They interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise, reject the non traditional conclusion and then criticize the Church as 'the Vatican Council II-sect'.
They do not re-interpret Vatican Council II with the rational premise, inference and conclusion. Since then there would be no text in the Council, to contradict Peter and Michael Dimond on EENS.They would then have to admit that they were wrong all these years. -Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment