The links show that Marchetti's inference, his personal theory with no precedent magisterial support, has been the basis for the rejection of the dogma as it was interpreted over the centuries, the 'strict interpretation'.
Here is the third link.It is the Wikpedia report on Father Leonard Feeney.
Father Leonard Edward Feeney (February 18, 1897 – January 30, 1978)[1] was a U.S. Jesuit priest, poet, lyricist, and essayist.He articulated and defended a strict interpretation of the Roman Catholic doctrine, extra Ecclesiam nulla salus ("outside the Church there is no salvation"). He took the position that baptism of blood and baptism of desire are unavailing and that therefore no non-Catholics will be saved.
Wikpedia does not mention that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 contrary to tradition and rationality assumed:-
1. Being saved in invincible ignorance, implicit desire or the baptism of blood referred to known cases, persons personally known, persons whose names and surnmames were known, who were saved without the baptism of water. So they were exceptions to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
2.There were magisterial documents which stated that being saved in invincible ignorance, implicit desire or the baptism of blood referred to known cases, persons personally known, persons whose names and surnmames were known and who were saved without the baptism of water. So there were magisterial documents, for the Letter of the Holy Office and Wikipedia, which referrred to exceptions to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
This is false!
The Letter of the Holy Office is irrational and has no magistreial precedent for this new doctrine.
He took the position that baptism of blood and baptism of desire are unavailing and that therefore no non-Catholics will be saved.
Lionel:
He took the position that defacto, in the present times, objectively there was no known case of someone saved without the baptism of water.
-Lionel Andrades
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/we-now-have-heresy-being-supported-by.html
Pope John Paul II also used the Marchetti irrationality to create a new theology in the Catholic Church
________________________________________
Fr.John Zuhlsdorf interprets Vatican Council II with Marchetti's theory so the Council for him is ambigous and a break with extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Fr.John Zuhlsdorf interprets Vatican Council II with Marchetti's theory so the Council for him is ambigous and a break with extra ecclesiam nulla salus - 2
Fr.John Zuhlsdorf interprets Vatican Council II with Marchetti's theory so the Council for him is ambigous and a break with extra ecclesiam nulla salus - 3
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment