October 24, 2014
Lionel:
Barbara,look at the tone of criticism against Pope Francis and Michael Voris while there is such a switch around for Archbishop Lefebvre.He also was in heresy? To imply that there are known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus is irrational. We don’t know any such person saved who is an exception in the present times.To change the traditional interpretation of the dogma is heretical.To teach a new doctrine is not traditional.
Barbara,look at the tone of criticism against Pope Francis and Michael Voris while there is such a switch around for Archbishop Lefebvre.He also was in heresy? To imply that there are known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus is irrational. We don’t know any such person saved who is an exception in the present times.To change the traditional interpretation of the dogma is heretical.To teach a new doctrine is not traditional.
______________________________________
Lionel:
Consistency in Hypocrisy that was the title of the last post by Louie.
Pope Francis said this – and Michael Voris said that – but what about Archbishop Lefebvre ? No one on the board to defend him or admit that he made a mistake or overlooked something?
Pope Francis said this – and Michael Voris said that – but what about Archbishop Lefebvre ? No one on the board to defend him or admit that he made a mistake or overlooked something?
Please note that the baptism of desire and the baptism of blood are part of the teachings of the Catholic Church and so there is no error here.
It is when it is implied that the the baptism of desire and baptism of blood are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, then the error arises. It is saying that these cases are visible and known to us in the present times to be exceptions.They would have to be known to be exceptions. If they were invisible they would not be exceptions.
We know however that those saved with the baptism of desire and baptism of blood are in Heaven and known only to God and so they are invisible for us.So why did Archbishop Lefebvre mentioned them ? Just because the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 mentioned them? He did not realilze that the Letter had made a mistake ? Amd the same mistake, the same reasoning he carried over into Vatican Council II in which LG 16, LG 8,NA 2 are EXPLICIT exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus?
It is when it is implied that the the baptism of desire and baptism of blood are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, then the error arises. It is saying that these cases are visible and known to us in the present times to be exceptions.They would have to be known to be exceptions. If they were invisible they would not be exceptions.
We know however that those saved with the baptism of desire and baptism of blood are in Heaven and known only to God and so they are invisible for us.So why did Archbishop Lefebvre mentioned them ? Just because the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 mentioned them? He did not realilze that the Letter had made a mistake ? Amd the same mistake, the same reasoning he carried over into Vatican Council II in which LG 16, LG 8,NA 2 are EXPLICIT exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus?
-Lionel Andrades
Would you say that was also an oversight of Archbishop Lefebvre ?
Muller-Fellay doctrinal deadlock : stuck on the ' visible dead ' issue
SSPX is still part of the problem : communique on the Beatification of Pope Paul VI
Maria Guarini, Father Stefano of Radio Vobiscum also like Padre Serafino Lanzetta FFI make the same mistake on Vatican Council II
Vatican Council II affirms extra ecclesiam nulla salus for me
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/10/vatican-council-ii-affirms-extra.html
__________________________________________
Posts
