Saturday, June 21, 2014

Catholic Religious indicate the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made a factual mistake :implicit desire etc is not visible to us


 

Catholic Religious who have said that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are not known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, indicate that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr.Leonard Feeney, has made a factual mistake, in its common interpretation.

There was no need for the cardinal who issued the Letter to mention implicit desire and being saved in invincible ignorance. He did mention them!.It  could be an indication that he considered these forms of salvation, an exception to all needing to convert into the Church with the baptism of water and Catholic Faith.It means they would have to be physically visible for him.Otherwise how could they be an exception to the dogma ?
This seems the general interpretation of the Letter which was not corrected by popes and the magisterium.
The objective error was then carried over into Vatican Council II by Cardinal Richard Cushing and the American Jesuits.
The  Letter of the Holy Office in the first half (introductory) seems to support Fr.Leonard Feeney on doctrine and in the second half criticizes him for disobedience.The Letter was an unofficial inter-office  communication from one bishop to another.It was placed in the Denzinger by Fr.Karl Rahner and supported by the pro-Mason Catholics.
Now more Catholics are aware, that it is common knowledge, that the dead cannot be seen on earth.So they cannot be considered exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation. So Pope Pius XII made an objective mistake. He also contradicted the traditional dogma which he called an ' infallible teaching'(Letter of the Holy Office). The text of the dogma defined by three Church Councils does not mention any exceptions. Also no magisterial text which does refer to the baptism of desire, says that it is explicit for us.This was the Cushing mistake.
In the Letter of the Holy Office and in Vatican Council II  Cushingism has to be noticed as an  inference. No change is required in the text. Once the Cushing inference is detected and avoided,  there is no objective error in the interpretation.For example, without Cushingism, LG 16,LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc do not contradict AG 7 and the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
-Lionel Andrades

 

 

DEAN OF THEOLOGY AT ST. ANSELM SAYS THERE ARE NO KNOWN EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUShttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/10/dean-of-theology-at-st-anselm-says.html#links
Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson says Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors
REDEMPTORIST PRIEST SAYS VATICAN COUNCIL II DOES NOT CONTRADICT ITSELF NOR THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
CANTATE DOMINO, COUNCIL OF FLORENCE ON EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS IS DE FIDE AND NOT CONTRADICTED BY VATICAN COUNCIL II- Fr. Nevus Marcello O.P http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/07/cantate-domino-council-of-florence-on.html
BRAZILIAN PRIEST SAYS VATICAN COUNCIL II DOES NOT CONTRADICT DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/07/brazilian-priest-says-vatican-council.html#links
LEGIONARY OF CHRIST PRIEST FR.RAFAEL PASCUAL AFFIRMS CANTATE DOMINO, COUNCIL OF FLORENCE

Catholic Religious contradict most Catholic priests and nuns : Nostra Aetate is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus

No comments: