- Introduction
- Intro to the Exegetical Commentary Project
- Rob Mullane · 9:51 My question how could a global conspiracy go on. Diplomatically with space treaties. Ambitious countries. How could a international mindset agree to such a global obstacle. Knowing they would have to know. I believe you. I believe your science. How could a fallacy like this remain. True top engineers say in the space industry. Like Ron Hatch have come around about relativity. Taking a plane in one direction. The time is about the same in the other. They say that's because the atmosphere travels with the rotation. If that's true why doesn't the rotation kick in with travel time. The first sentence is the question.
- Renée Marie · 13:33 Hi Robert. Kindly post the links of your youtube channel, youtube posts
- A question about latest images of black holes.
- Andrew Attar · 16:39 The enemies of the faith fully understand what's at stake.
- Charlie Salcedo · 18:33 A holy fear of God is good
- Charlie Salcedo · 20:28 Have you heard of the Pascal's Wager?
- Laurence Gonzaga · 20:12 Question: Considering the insights from Not by Bread Alone about the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, is the Ordinary Form sufficiently demonstrating this reality?
- Ro En · 21:20 I don't think that heliocentrism necessarily leads to the conclusion that humanity is insignificant.
- Edoardo da Pra · 21:38 Have you considered doing live youtube videos? it seems to me that now many are evangelizing or spreading error to huge crowds on that platform. Look at Skiba, James White, Hovind, Ben Shapiro, Alex Jones, they all found big crowds on Youtube. Will you also put yuur old movies on the chANNEL
- Andrew Attar · 21:56 What's the central theological issue you're working on after geocentrism?
- Ro En · 34:16 Robert Sungenis, can you comment on Dr. James White's interpretation of Hebrews 10:29? He says that the one who is sanctified is Jesus.
- Andrew Attar · 24:03 Is it true the orbital satellites disprove Special Relativity? No time displacement.
- Gage Livingston · 30:16 Hi Robert, Can you comment on the Greek used in Hebrews 3:14 that we have discussed by email to answer this question: How does the verse leave open the possibility that the one who truly believed but then falls away did at one time "share in Christ" since the verse says that on the condition we hold our confidence to the end, then we share in Christ now? It seems to indicate that the one who doesn't hold their confidence firm to the end does not share in Christ now. Yet, in Catholic theology we would say it is possible to share in Christ now but then fall away.
- Edoardo da Pra · 33:40 Would you consider hiring a social media expert that can help you spread your material? How about podcasts on Spotify, that is what many young people listen to now. There are many orthodox Catholics that can launch in a new and effective way your books, videos and material. I think there is so much potential that your work has that has not yet been actualized. Maybe some Church Militant media worker could help, I am sure you can find one.
- Johnny Proctor · 37:03 Thanks for doing this, Dr. Sungenis, This is a very direct way to share the holy Gospel.
- Paul Novak · 41:06 What are your thoughts on Fr Georges Lemaître I've never heard you mention him and if you have I apologize.
Robert Sungenis Live - 8/7/19
Geocentrism - Crackpot Theory?
New Video from the Fatima Center
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=554TOFX3FW8&feature=share&list=LL3x3gDTqUYy_bFZWS-U_mZQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=554TOFX3FW8&feature=share&list=LL3x3gDTqUYy_bFZWS-U_mZQ
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (Question 36, November 2005)
Dear Mr. Sungenis,B. Douglass: Laurence,
I have an apologetics question. Aside from teaching Confirmation, I do a bit of Apologetics lessons for them. While I was trying to shed some light on what the church teaches on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus some people asked about how non-Christians are saved, if at all. I explained to them that Salvation outside of the Catholic faith is dependent upon the presence of invincible ignorance on the individual's part, lacking a formal rejection of the Catholic faith. Furthermore, for those who are saved outside of the Catholic faith, their rewards are proportional to the truth which they possess, abiding by their conscience.
I used the following passage illustrating a similarity about how Paul described that Gentiles were following the Law written on their hearts, the Natural Law. Also, elsewhere there is a similar teaching using circumcision as a reference to one's identification.
Romans 2:11-16 DRB For there is no respect of persons with God. For whosoever have sinned without the law shall perish without the law: and whosoever have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law. For not the hearers of the law are just before God: but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these, having not the law, are a law to themselves. Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them: and their thoughts between themselves accusing or also defending one another, In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.
Is it appropriate to be using the above passage as a defense for the potential Salvation of those who have never heard the Gospel? If not, what are the best passages to reflect upon?
Thank you, Sir.
Dominus Vobiscum,
Laurence A. Gonzaga
Confirmation Catechist
San Bernardino
That is exacltly the right passage to use. Blessed Pope Pius IX follows the thought of this passage very closely in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore 7: "There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments."
Your statement about rewards is a bit unclear. Like anyone else, those saved in invincible ignorance will be rewarded in proportion as they have performed meritorious works by cooperating with actual grace, in a state of sanctifying grace.
JMJ,
Ben Douglass
Baptism of Desire 1-3 (Questions 49, 50, and 51, June 2006)
Father Leonard Feeney, SJ
Question 49- Baptism of Desire
Robert,
I read your Gerry Matatics and Sedevacantism and it was excellent, except one thing....
You quote the following to attempt to prove baptism of desire:
We can also add the interpretation under the reign of Pius X, the very pope that the sedevacantists consider one of the last legitimate popes. His Catechism states:
17 Q: Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, long with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
Treating this like doctrine is absurd. Is this the only authority on the subject you have? It is weak proof at best. Pope Boniface blew pseudo baptisms theory out of the water in the 1400's:
The Church Teaches Ex Cathedra: "The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics, and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire "which was prepared for the devil, and his angels," (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this Ecclesiastical Body, that only those remaining within this unity can profit from the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, alms deeds, and other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441)
NO ONE, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.
Ah! So, there's no such thing as baptism of blood.
As for baptism of desire, Trent canons cannot be ignored. These canons categorically deny that some kind of 'baptism of desire' or baptism without water is legitimate, let alone salvific.
Canons on Baptism
Canon 5. If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation,[13] let him be anathema
Canon 2. If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism[9] and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost,[10] let him be anathema.
Trent also says:
The causes of this justification are: the final cause is the glory of God and of Christ and life everlasting; the efficient cause is the merciful God who washes and sanctifies[31] gratuitously, signing and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance,[32] the meritorious cause is His most beloved only begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies,[33] for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us,[34] merited for us justification by His most holy passion on the wood of the cross and made satisfaction for us to God the Father, the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith,[35] without which no man was ever justified...
So, the instrumental cause of justification is the SACRAMENT of baptism without which no man was ever justified. No one was ever justified without the SACRAMENT of baptism!
Baptism of desire is not a sacrament.
The statements I've supplied are infallible. They clearly demonstrate the teaching of the church. Catechism writings, sometimes subject to error are, if contrary, without merit or authority. While there are sentiments for BOD even amongst saints, they remain sentiments, false hope. Baptism of desire is not Catholic doctrine.
Why does the Church emphasize, ONE Lord, ONE Faith, ONE Baptism?
We know about other lords, we know about other faiths, but what about other baptisms? What other baptisms? This awesome statement warns Catholics in advance about the heresy of two other false baptisms that are powerless to save and have, in recent times, devastated the evangelical mission of the Church.
Elaine
R. Sungenis: Elaine, no, Pius X is not the only source. We have an infallible source before him, and if you read my essay in any depth you should have seen it. The Council of Trent, Session 22, says, infallibly, that the laver of water, or its desire, procures justification.
Question 50- Baptism of Desire 2
Reconciling the Trent statements can be tricky. Either we have to believe that Trent is lying when it says "no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." or when it says that sacrament of baptism is necessary, or we need to read the statement properly that you cite. In other words, BOTH desire and laver procure justification. It makes much more sense to understand the use of the language (latin or English) and the way a negative statement is able to use the word "or". Any linguist will tell you that "or" can be inclusive when a statement is stated in the negative. Now how easy is that?
Elaine
R. Sungenis: Elaine, that argument won't work, because Trent isn't using "or" in the negative or in the inclusive. We know this by the way Trent refers to "desire" in other places, namely how it says that the "desire" for confession suffices to forgive one's sins both in Chapter 14:
but also the sacramental confession of the same, at least in desire and to be made in its season, and sacerdotal absolution, as well as satisfaction by fasting, almsgiving, prayers, and other devout exercises of the spiritual life, not indeed for the eternal punishment, which is remitted together with the guilt either by the sacrament or the desire of the sacrament, but for the temporal punishment [Canon 30],
and Canon 4:
If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that, although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification: let him be anathema
Reconciling the Trent statements can be tricky. Either we have to believe that Trent is lying when it says "no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." or when it says that sacrament of baptism is necessary, or we need to read the statement properly that you cite. In other words, BOTH desire and laver procure justification. It makes much more sense to understand the use of the language (latin or English) and the way a negative statement is able to use the word "or". Any linguist will tell you that "or" can be inclusive when a statement is stated in the negative. Now how easy is that?
Elaine
R. Sungenis: Elaine, that argument won't work, because Trent isn't using "or" in the negative or in the inclusive. We know this by the way Trent refers to "desire" in other places, namely how it says that the "desire" for confession suffices to forgive one's sins both in Chapter 14:
but also the sacramental confession of the same, at least in desire and to be made in its season, and sacerdotal absolution, as well as satisfaction by fasting, almsgiving, prayers, and other devout exercises of the spiritual life, not indeed for the eternal punishment, which is remitted together with the guilt either by the sacrament or the desire of the sacrament, but for the temporal punishment [Canon 30],
and Canon 4:
If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that, although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification: let him be anathema
Question 51- Baptism of Desire 3
"Elaine, that argument won't work, because Trent isn't using "or" in the negative or in the inclusive."
Well, in fact, that statement IS stated negatively. It says you can't have justification without...rather than saying how you can have justification with. By definition, that is what is meant when something is stated in the negative sense. The word "or" is often inclusive in such usage. For example:
You cannot receive Holy Communion without fasting or repentance.
There. You need both things; you need to fast AND you need to repent in order to receive Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. Not rocket science. Both uses for "or" are very, very common. Latin or English. Over and over and over again and everywhere.
You cannot have good Toll House cookies without chocolate chips or sugar...or flour or salt or vanilla or someone to bake them.
"Or" is used to delineate and refine, but also to include. You can see it happen within this negatively stated truth about ordinary chocolate chip cookies. You need several things for Toll House cookies. Comparing the Trent statement about desire side by side with the cookie statement, you are suggesting that chocolate chips ALONE make good Toll House cookies. Doesn't make sense does it? It's so simple, it's scary. No wonder this whole false notion got as far as it did. Clever, that devil.
As for 'desire' sufficing for confession, you are correct, with conditions. Perfect contrition only applies to those who've been validly baptized and the necessity for confessing to a priest still remains because there is no remission of sin outside the church.
Baptism is different because it is the door to the other sacraments and because it's conditions have been set already. Water is a fundamental part of the sacrament. Baptism of desire reduces baptism to a metaphor. It makes a mockery of statements like: One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism. It denies the necessity of water and the Holy Spirit for salvation. It flies in the face of infallible canons, doctrinal statements, teachings of the saints, councils, and on and on. And it guts the words of scripture.
Just read the Trent statement correctly. Suddenly, a multitude of infallible statements ring true, the missionary mandate to "go and baptize all nations..." excites a more intense sense of urgency and Jesus has a little more clout when He says, "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, let him be anathema."
Elaine
R. Sungenis: Sorry, Elaine, assumptions don't stand for doctrine. You would have to prove that Trent is using "or" in the sense you demand, but there is no such evidence. Unfortunately, you didn't deal with the examples of how Trent uses "desire" in the other two places of Session 22, therefore you have no basis for your argument. Those two examples show you that Trent doesn't use "desire" in the inclusive sense, but in the exclusive, as do all the Fathers and doctors who have written on this subject. The only one who seems to have disagreed is Fr. Feeney. Unfortunately, his exegesis is faulty not only here, but also in his attempt to make a distinction between Justification and Salvation so that he could say that the "desire" of baptism doesn't provide Salvation, only Justification, which is absurd. No Father, doctor, saint, council or pope ever made such a distinction. Of course, the real problem behind all of this is the Feeneyites attempt to determine who is saved and not saved, but that is a realm held exclusively in God's stead.
"Elaine, that argument won't work, because Trent isn't using "or" in the negative or in the inclusive."
Well, in fact, that statement IS stated negatively. It says you can't have justification without...rather than saying how you can have justification with. By definition, that is what is meant when something is stated in the negative sense. The word "or" is often inclusive in such usage. For example:
You cannot receive Holy Communion without fasting or repentance.
There. You need both things; you need to fast AND you need to repent in order to receive Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. Not rocket science. Both uses for "or" are very, very common. Latin or English. Over and over and over again and everywhere.
You cannot have good Toll House cookies without chocolate chips or sugar...or flour or salt or vanilla or someone to bake them.
"Or" is used to delineate and refine, but also to include. You can see it happen within this negatively stated truth about ordinary chocolate chip cookies. You need several things for Toll House cookies. Comparing the Trent statement about desire side by side with the cookie statement, you are suggesting that chocolate chips ALONE make good Toll House cookies. Doesn't make sense does it? It's so simple, it's scary. No wonder this whole false notion got as far as it did. Clever, that devil.
As for 'desire' sufficing for confession, you are correct, with conditions. Perfect contrition only applies to those who've been validly baptized and the necessity for confessing to a priest still remains because there is no remission of sin outside the church.
Baptism is different because it is the door to the other sacraments and because it's conditions have been set already. Water is a fundamental part of the sacrament. Baptism of desire reduces baptism to a metaphor. It makes a mockery of statements like: One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism. It denies the necessity of water and the Holy Spirit for salvation. It flies in the face of infallible canons, doctrinal statements, teachings of the saints, councils, and on and on. And it guts the words of scripture.
Just read the Trent statement correctly. Suddenly, a multitude of infallible statements ring true, the missionary mandate to "go and baptize all nations..." excites a more intense sense of urgency and Jesus has a little more clout when He says, "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, let him be anathema."
Elaine
R. Sungenis: Sorry, Elaine, assumptions don't stand for doctrine. You would have to prove that Trent is using "or" in the sense you demand, but there is no such evidence. Unfortunately, you didn't deal with the examples of how Trent uses "desire" in the other two places of Session 22, therefore you have no basis for your argument. Those two examples show you that Trent doesn't use "desire" in the inclusive sense, but in the exclusive, as do all the Fathers and doctors who have written on this subject. The only one who seems to have disagreed is Fr. Feeney. Unfortunately, his exegesis is faulty not only here, but also in his attempt to make a distinction between Justification and Salvation so that he could say that the "desire" of baptism doesn't provide Salvation, only Justification, which is absurd. No Father, doctor, saint, council or pope ever made such a distinction. Of course, the real problem behind all of this is the Feeneyites attempt to determine who is saved and not saved, but that is a realm held exclusively in God's stead.
What is the Difference btw Baptism of Desire and Universal Salvation? (Question 53, October 2004)
R. Sungenis: Yes, there is no such a thing as "Universal Salvation," since Scripture, Tradition and Church dogma are clear that not everyone will be saved. Baptism of Desire (which is more technically phrased in Latin as "Desire of Baptism") is the doctrine that someone can be justified if, without receiving actual water baptism before they die, he/she has desired to receive Baptism in their mind and will. Whether this "desire" must be explicit (verbalized to the Church) or implicit (held in one's conscience only) the Church has not defined as yet.
Baptism of Desire? (Question 14, August 2004)
Dear Mr. Sungenis:
In question 34 of the July Q&As, your correspondent Michael espouses
the heretical theory that men cannot be saved by the desire for
baptism. This teaching is contrary to Vatican II, Trent, St. Thomas
Aquinas, St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, and the 1949 Letter of the Holy
Office to Archbishop Cushing concerning the doctrine of Fr. Feeney.
Indeed, St. Alphonsus Liguori states:
Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by
virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbytero non baptizato" and of
the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one
can be saved "without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it".
(Theologia Moralis, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7.)
The teaching concerning invincible ignorance (which, while not de fide,
is the common and safe teaching of theologians) was espoused by
approved pre-conciliar theologians such as Charles Cardinal Journet,
who writes in his 1951 "Church of the Word Incarnate":
"No salvation outside the Church" is true of those who do not belong to
the Church, which in herself is visible, either visibly (corporaliter)
or even invisibly, either by the sacraments (sacramentaliter) or even
in spirit (mentaliter); either fully (re) or even by desire (voto);
either in accomplished act or even in virtual act.[86] The axiom does
not concern the just who, without yet belonging to the Church visibly,
in accomplished act (re), do so invisibly, in virtual act, in spirit,
by desire (mentaliter, voto), that is to say in virtue of the
supernatural righteousness of their lives, even while, through
insurmountable ignorance, they know nothing of the sanctity, or even of
the existence, of the Church.[87]
The footnotes cite such luminaries as St. Thomas, St. Robert
Bellarmine, and Suarez, as well as other theologians.
Patrick
R. Sungenis: Thank you, Patrick, for sharing these things. I agree, and it is clear, that the Council of Trent teaches that justification can come from the desire of baptism. Those who teach otherwise end up with having to make a distinction between justification and salvation, which is nowhere taught in Scripture or the Church.
Baptism of "Desire" (Question 13, October 2003)
I think I can answer most of it, but maybe I'm confused between the terms: Baptism of Desire AND Baptism by implicit desireMike, actually, the only dogmatic place that this issue is taught is at the Council of Trent, in three places. The first place is in session 6, chapter 4. There it states:
"Chapter 4. A Description of the Justification of the Sinner, and Its Mode in the State of Grace is Recommended: "In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons' of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior; and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be erected except through the laver of regeneration, or a desire for it, as it is written: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.'"Here, the Latin word for "desire" is "votum," which is normally translated as "vow" or "promise," as it is, for example, preponderantly throughout the Douay-Rheims bible. It can also mean "desire," but a desire to fulfill a vow or promise. In addition, the Latin reads as "vow of baptism" (or "desire of baptism"), rather than "baptism of desire." Hence, the use of "baptism of desire" is actually a inadvertent juxtaposition of the Latin words, and unfortunately, often gives the connotation that "desire" itself is a substitute for baptism. The Latin, however, speaks more specifically to the individual's prior knowledge of baptism, and thus his "desire" to fulfill his promise to receive baptism, rather than a "baptism of desire."
This distinction can be seen in one of the other times that Trent uses the idea of "desire." In session 6, chapter 14, it reads:
"Hence it must be taught that the repentance of a Christian after his fall is very different from that at his baptism, and that it includes not only a cessation from sins, and a detestation of them, or a contrite and humble heart' [Psalm 50:19], but also the sacramental confession of the same, at least in desire, and to be made in its season, and sacerdotal absolution, as well as satisfaction by fasting, almsgiving, prayers, and other devout exercises of the spiritual life, not indeed for the eternal punishment, which is remitted together with the guilt either by the sacrament or the desire of the sacrament, but for the temporal punishment [Canon 30], which (as the Sacred Writings teach) is not always wholly remitted, as is done in baptism..."Here the individual is understood as one who already knows of his responsibility to receive absolution in Confession for his sin, but perchance, doesn't live long enough to do so. In that case, the "desire" to fulfill his promise to go to Confession is sufficient. His "vow" to do so is reinforced by the other committments he must honor, e.g., "as well as satisfaction by fasting, almsgiving, prayers, and other devout exercises of the spiritual life."
The 1992 Catechism also teaches the same. In paragraph 1258 it states:
"The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament."Notice that the Catechism does not call it "the baptism of desire," but "the desire for Baptism," which distinction acknowledges that the person fulfilling the category is one who already knows of his responsibility to receive baptism.
This is confirmed by the next paragraph of the Catechism (1259) which reiterates the Traditional interpretation of Trent's chapter 4 on the "desire for baptism," that is, that the "desire for baptism" applies in the first sense to catechumens. It states:
"For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament."The last time "desire" is mentioned at Trent is in Canon 4 on the Sacraments:
"Canon 4: If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that, although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification: let him be anathema."Again, we see that Trent, as did the Catechism, stresses the "desire for" the sacraments, not the "sacraments of desire." It is clearly stated that one who does not receive baptism or confession has not received the sacrament, even though they "desired" the sacrament. In other words, the "desire" for the sacrament does not mean they have received the sacrament. They will be saved without the sacrament (but only if they had a desire for the sacrament).
Theology is all about making the proper distinctions, and this is one of those times that proper distinctions must be made.
All that I have said above is what has traditionally been taught of Baptism and the desire for it, and is reiterated in the 1992 Catechism.
The speculative and non-resolved implications of "desire for baptism" concern the issue of those who may have sought God in their lives, but had no knowledge of their responsibility to be baptised, or even knew of baptism. What is to be done for these kinds of people? The Church has not given a definitive answer on this question, just as she has not given a definitive answer on the eternal destiny of an infant who dies without baptism. These issues are covered in paragraphs 1260 and 1261 of the Catechism, but you will see by the language that the author is non-committal in his answer, that is, he does not claim to be giving a dogmatic answer to either question, but only gives "suppositions." In the end, as Pius XI taught, our knowledge concerning the recipients of salvation will take us only so far and no further, and to speculate beyond that point is not our prerogative.
God be with you.
Robert Sungenis
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)