Monday, December 31, 2012

ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE DID NOT POINT OUT THE VISIBLE-DEAD ERROR TO CARDINAL OTTAVIANI NEITHER DID THEY MAKE IT KNOWN

Cardinal Ottaviani was the Secretary of the Holy Office in the Roman Curia from 1959 to 1966 according to Wikipedia, when that dicastery was reorganised as the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF), of which he was Pro-Prefect until 1968.

When Cardinal Ottaviani ceased being the Prefect of the CDF Archbishop Lefebvre was in his fifties.He was an Archbishop at that time.

Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani and Archbishop Lefebvre participated in the debates and drafting of documents at Vatican Council II.

Archbishop Lefebvre was aware of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII. Did he assume that the media's interpretation of the Letter of the Holy Office was correct ?

Neither did he or Cardinal Ottaviani object. Neither did Cardinal Ottaviani lift the excommunication against Fr.Leonard Feeney.

Fr. Leonard Feeney was excommunicated on 13 February 1953 for disobedience to Church authority i.e the bishop. He was reconciled to the Church in 1972, but was not required to retract or recant his interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

If the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are not explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus why did none of them object to the excommunication and the maintaining of the excommunication for some 19 years? The excommunication was for disobedience but the media was reporting that it was for heresy.

Being saved with the baptism of desire , invincible ignorance, a good conscience etc has nothing to do with the dogma since we do not know these cases. So they are not exceptions.

Did Cardinal Ottaviani and Archbishop Lefebvre not know this? Was there not an injustice being done in Boston to the former Jesuit priest?

Did Archbishop Lefebvre assume that the dead saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are known to us in the present times and so are explicit exceptions to the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus?

So like Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston, did they assume that Vatican Council II was a break with Tradition,  Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance and a good convcience) contradicted the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?


The SSPX was founded in 1970 and so they have continued to assume that Vatican Council II contradicts the traditional teaching on other religions. For the SSPX bishops and priests, the dead saved are visible and so are exceptions to the traditional understanding of the dogma on salvation.Lionel Andrades

No comments: