Griff Ruby continues his second round of Feeney refutations by taking apart one of the St. Benedict's Center's very first attempts at defining their position publicly. Though the denials of Baptism of Blood and Desire were only hinted at, the kind of pessimistic thinking upon which those denials were based is fully evidenced. In this first of three parts, Griff exposes the ignorance of those who hold mere ignorance itself to be sufficient cause for damnation, as he addresses the Introduction, Part 1, for first of a three part with the beginning of his fourteenth installment.
Reply to a Liberal, part a
|
|
|
Griff continues his second round of Feeney refutations with this second part of taking apart one of the St. Benedict's Center's very first attempts at defining their position publicly, a piece titled Reply to a Liberal. So which is it? Does God condemn the non-culpable or is every non-Catholic under any circumstance personally culpable for their failure to become Catholic? In this second of three parts, Griff exposes the bigotry of those who hold all non-Catholics personally guilty of heresy, schism, or apostasy, as he addresses the remainder of Part 2 of
Reply to a Liberal, part b
|
|
|
Griff completes his analysis of Reply to a Liberal, taking on its Part 3 and Conclusion. Instead of imitating Christ Who seeks to save all by whatever means the Son of God may choose (even if we mortals cannot guess them as we are so wont to do), the Reply piece instead seeks to find and multiply all the possible reasons for a person to be damned. Get the idea that perhaps they don't want too much company in Heaven? Even the innocent can be damned, by their reasoning! Griff explains in his final part of his three-part installment on
Reply to a Liberal, Part c
|
|