This is the creation of the liberal theologians and the Masons to get rid of the dogma EENS but why are the traditionalists supporting them? Is it because they know that Archbishop Lefebvre made the mistake and they are trying to defend him?
How can Mystici Corporis, Quanta Curia and the Catechisms of Trent and Pius X be an exception to the dogma EENS when they mention the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance?
When the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, past or present, refer to invisible cases how can they be relevant to EENS?
When the popes and saints mentioned the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance it was in response to a question about them.They were also referring to hypothetical cases. They could only be hypothetical cases, this is something obvious.
However the liberal theologians interpreted them as being visible and known cases and so they became exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS. Now even traditionalist and sedevacantists repeat this error.
At the traditionalist conference they will reject Vatican Council II since they will interpret LG 16 etc as being visible and known cases in the present times saved outside the Church.
They will also not affirm Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus since the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to visible and known people saved outside the Church.
They will repeat this error even after they have been informed about it for so many years, every year.-Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment