Ambrose:
I have said this over and over again. Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for disobedience for not reporting to Rome. But, he was being called to Rome for his doctrinal errors.
I have said this over and over again. Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for disobedience for not reporting to Rome. But, he was being called to Rome for his doctrinal errors.
Lionel:
How could affirming the dogma as it was interpreted throughout the centuries be a doctrinal error? Were the popes and saints also wrong?
How can the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance be considered an exception to the traditional interpretation ? We do not know any such person who is saved in the present times.Can you name someone in 2013-2014? Also no pope or saint says these cases are physically visible to us and so are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Also to assume that there are known excpetions to the dogma is not only irrational but is also heresy.It is a new doctrine.This was not part of the Deposit of the Faith before 1949.
Ambrose:
The 1949 Holy Office letter specifically corrected St. Benedict Center, and that included Fr. Feeney for their doctrinal error denial of Implicit Baptism of Desire.
Ambrose:
The 1949 Holy Office letter specifically corrected St. Benedict Center, and that included Fr. Feeney for their doctrinal error denial of Implicit Baptism of Desire.
Lionel:
Implicit for us baptism of desire is implicit for us. It is invisible.How can something which is not explicit be relevant or an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney?
Ambrose:
You are of course correct, and I have always said the same, that the original error of denying implicit Baptism of desire grew into a heresy of denying Baptism of Desire in and of itself.
Ambrose:
You are of course correct, and I have always said the same, that the original error of denying implicit Baptism of desire grew into a heresy of denying Baptism of Desire in and of itself.
Lionel:
Whether one denies or accepts the baptism of desire, what has this to do with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus?
Ambrose:
This is what today's Feeneyites are, we are no longer in the 1940's. I do not know of any Feeneyites who hold the original SBC position any longer! as far as I see, they all deny Baptism of Desire, or if not deny it, at least doubt it, which is a grave sin against Faith.
This is what today's Feeneyites are, we are no longer in the 1940's. I do not know of any Feeneyites who hold the original SBC position any longer! as far as I see, they all deny Baptism of Desire, or if not deny it, at least doubt it, which is a grave sin against Faith.
Lionel:
I affirm the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. I also affirm the baptism of desire.I accept the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney and endorse an implicit for us and visible only for God baptism of desire.
For me it does not have to be an either or position.I do not have to choose. I can eat my cake and cut it too! This is possible since the baptism of desire is always, not visible for me.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment