Michael and Peter Dimond are
correct here in general on the baptism of desire and the necessity of the
baptism of water with no exceptions for salvation.
However they use the False
Premise to interpret the baptism of desire (LG 14) and invincible ignorance (LG
16). So they are correct on extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( with no practical
exceptions) but are wrong on Vatican Council II, with LG 14 and LG 16 being
exceptions for EENS. For them Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition (EENS
etc).This is irrational. They are not using the Rational Premise to interpret LG 8,
LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA2, GS 22 etc.
They interpret Vatican Council
II like the traditionalists and the liberals.
No comments:
Post a Comment