Would you say that was also an oversight of Archbishop Lefebvre ?

MJC
“The temptation to neglect the “depositum fidei,”
Would you say that was also an oversight of Archbishop Lefebvre ?

There are three ways of receiving it: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of the martyrs who confessed the faith while still catechumens) and baptism of desire.-Archbishop Lefebvre

(Lionel:Wrong there is only one way of receiving it. De facto there is only the baptism of water. We cannot administer the baptism of desire to any one. We do not know any one who will be saved this year with the baptism of blood and so will not need the baptism of water. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre assumes that the baptism of desire and baptism of blood are explicit for us and so are exceptions to the traditional intepretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Otherwise why would he mention it? It is relevant only if it is explicit.He has accepted the wrong inference of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.)

You can respond even here :
http://www.harvestingthefruit.com/topic/archbishop-lefebvre-made-a-mistake/#post-5150
http://www.harvestingthefruit.com/topic/archbishop-lefebvre-made-a-mistake/

 

 

http://www.harvestingthefruit.com/paulsplay/#comments

______________________________________________

 

Dumb ox
‘obstinacy of heretics’

Lynda.
Could this be an oversight like that of Archbishop Lefebvre ?

The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire.-Archbishop Lefebvre

(Lionel: The baptism of desire refers to a catechumen who sought the baptism of water and was denied before he received it. For us this case is hypothetical. It is always invisible for us and known only to God. We cannot know any such case in 2014 and so it cannot be an exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.)
Does the doctrine of the Church also recognise explicit for us implicit baptism of desire? Visible for us implicit baptism of desire ??

http://www.harvestingthefruit.com/topic/archbishop-lefebvre-made-a-mistake/#post-5150

 

http://www.harvestingthefruit.com/paulsplay/#comments

__________________________________________

 

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.

-Lionel Andrades