Comments from the blog The Eponymous Flower
So Lionel (and Tancred), lemme get this straight....your schtick is that the SSPX may be (MAY be...and I do not concede the point as the disputed doctrine is an ancient one, and I could match your cherry-picked theologians with many on the other side) wrong on A doctrinal point, vs. 60,000 and counting from jorge and his clowncar cabal in red beenies?
uuuhhh, yeah....I'll put my money on the Society as the carriers of Catholic Faith and Tradition at this put.
uuuhhh, yeah....I'll put my money on the Society as the carriers of Catholic Faith and Tradition at this put.
sorry, "point".
Lionel:
You tell me.
Can you physically see people in Heaven?
Can you see or meet someone in 2016 who is also Heaven?
Can there be known cases of people saved with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water?
Then ask yourself how do the SSPX priests and bishops answer the above questions.
Is their theology and doctrines based on there being known people on earth saved without the baptism of water, who are explicit exceptions to all needing to enter the Church for salvation?
Then what about Vatican Council II? Can this reasoning be applied to Vatican Council II?
Can you physically see people in Heaven?
Can you see or meet someone in 2016 who is also Heaven?
Can there be known cases of people saved with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water?
Then ask yourself how do the SSPX priests and bishops answer the above questions.
Is their theology and doctrines based on there being known people on earth saved without the baptism of water, who are explicit exceptions to all needing to enter the Church for salvation?
Then what about Vatican Council II? Can this reasoning be applied to Vatican Council II?
http://eponymousflower.blogspot.it/2016/07/statements-of-competent-archbishop.html#comment-form
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment