I get no reply from Prof. Roberto Matteo. I do not expect a reply from the Society of St.Pius X (Italy, N.America) and I do not expect a reply from Daphne Mcleod saying that Michael Davis was wrong or just overlooked something important.
Michael Davis never ever said that Fr.Leonard Feeney was correct in saying there is no (explicit for us) baptism of desire.Davis never supported Fr.Leonard Feeney.
Instead he could have agreed with Cardinal Cushing and the Jesuits in Boston for whom invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire were exceptions to the dogma. Michael Davis was not aware that these cases are not explicit for us and so they cannot be exceptions.
The error was overlooked in the 1940's.So Cardinal Cushing and the Jesuits could place innocent text in Vatican Council II referring to implicit salvation and just about every body assumed that this was a reference to explicit for us salvation. Vatican Council II was interpreted as contradicting the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the traditional teaching on other religions.
Daphne Mcleod knows there are no exceptions since a few years back I mentioned it to her.However at the time of the Boston controversy she too could have been confused.
Today traditionalists take it for granted that Vatican Council II refers to not implicit for us salvation but visible for us cases in Heaven. Once this error is removed there is nothing in the Council to contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus as interpreted before the 1930's; as interpreted by St.Maximillian Kolbe.
I am waiting for Daphne McLeod's response. I sent her the last e-mail and I am also sending her this one.
-Lionel Andrades
No comments:
Post a Comment