On May 17,2014 I wrote to the Most Holy Family Monastery on my blog the following: _______________________________
You(MHFM) write on your website: It’s that in addition to the dogmatic arguments (and the key question) which destroy ‘baptism of desire’, it’s important not to forget about the teaching of papal encyclicals to the entire Church in the modern period.They are thoroughly and completely on our side. (Lionel: They do not claim that the baptism of desire is visible to us and so is relevant or an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus) I repeat: They do not claim that the baptism of desire is visible to us and so is relevant or an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. I repeat: They do not claim that the baptism of desire is visible to us and so is relevant or an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. _________________________________
That was the end of the dialogue with the MHFM in May 2014.They never responded.Perhaps they did not understand what I am saying. Since for years they have been looking at the baptism of desire issue theologically. They were unaware of the error on which this theology was built.The premise of the Holy Office and the Archbishop of Boston in 1949 was wrong. They assumed there was salvation outside the Church. They assumed that the baptism of desire was visible to us. This is the same error being made by the MHFM. Of course the MHFM could not cite any of the saints saying that the baptism of desire is visible. They just left it at that.They could not admit they were wrong all these years. Once again they have ended the dialogue. They do not have an answer. Here is my last e-mail to them, the other day, hoping they would see and admit that they were irrational all these years.No answer from them. They will continue to write about the baptism of desire on their websites and not refer to this point.
For the MHM from Lionel
'Zero cases of something are not exceptions',says the American apologist John Martigioni. He agrees with me .He says that the baptism of desire is not physically visible. How do you deal with this? He is saying that the baptism of desire is not relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.How would you respond? He is not talking theology. He is saying that with our physical eyes we cannot see any baptism of desire case? It's as simple as that. So how can the baptism of desire be an explicit exception to all needing the baptism of water in 2014 for salvation? How can there be an exception when you do not know and cannot know any exception? On my blog I have quoted John Martigioni in detail. So when will you respond to this point on the baptism of desire? There are Catholic priests in Rome who repeat the same thing on the baptism of desire.I have written about it on my blog.(See Catholic priests in the right hand bar).They say that Fr.Leonard Feeney was correct and the baptism of desire is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. -Lionel Andrades
Dialogue with the MHFM 2
August 10, 2014
August 9, 2014