Monday, July 7, 2014

No acknowledgment from the Vatican Press Office to 12 questions :Franciscans of the Immaculate

On July 3,2014 when I received an e-mail from the Vatican Press Office 1 from Cristina Ravenda I asked her if she could  kindly answer the 12 questions regarding Catholic doctrine which the Franciscans of the Immaculate are expected to accept.I asked what was the position of the Vatican with reference to the 12 points mentioned in the following blog post.
 
July 3, 2014
RELATIVES OF THE FRANCISCAN SISTERS OF THE IMMACULATE : ASK THE VATICAN AND THE SISTERS TO CLARIFY THESE POINTS ON DOCTRINE http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/07/relatives-of-franciscan-sisters-of.html#links
 
There was no acknowledgment from the Vatican Office. I do not know if they have received my e-mail or will they answer it.
 
   

Here  are the 12 questions.

QUESTIONS:

1. Do they  (Franciscans of the Immaculate / Vatican ) affirm ' a ray of the Truth(Nostra Aetate 2), as  being invisible for us or visible in the flesh for us?

2.Do they affirm an invisible for us ' seeds of the Word' (Ad Gentes 11, Vatican Council II) or a visible for us saved with the 'seeds of the Word'?
3.Do they affirm an invisible for us having been saved in 'imperfect communion with the Church' or do they claim there is a physically visible case of a non Catholic saved in 'imperfect communion with the Church' ?
4.Do they affirm an invisible for us saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16, Letter of the Holy Office 1949) or a case of someone physically visible in 2014 saved in invincible ignorance ?
5.Do the Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate/Vatican  affirm an invisible for us being saved with 'elements of sanctification and truth'(LG 8) or are these cases visible in the flesh?
6.Do the Sisters affirm an invisible for us implicit desire/baptism of desire or are these cases visible for us and so are an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus?
7.Do the Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate  affirm all salvation mentioned to or alluded to in Vatican Council II as being invisible in Heaven for us on earth or are they physically seen in heaven and/ or  earth?
 
 I,Lionel Andrades, affirm an invisible for  me baptism of desire and I reject an explicit for us baptism of desire.Is this the teaching of the Catholic Church or am I in heresy, according to the Franciscans of the Immaculate/Vatican ? Note: I am not denying implicit baptism of desire as a possibility. I am denying the existence of an explicit,objectively visible baptism of desire.
8.For me Vatican Council II is traditional.Since Ad Gentes 7 ( all need faith and baptism for salvation) is in agreement with extra ecclesiam nulla salus and NA 2, AG 11,LG 8, LG 16, UR 3 etc are not visible to us.So they are not physically known exceptions.Is  it the same for the Franciscan Sisters of  the Immaculate/Vatican ?
 
9.For me the Holy Office 1949 has made a mistake in assuming that implicit desire/baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to visible cases.The Holy Office 1949 infers that these physically visible cases are a known exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.Do the Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate also make this inference ?
10.For me Vatican Council II (without the inference of the dead-saved being visible)  has a hermeneutic of continuity with no ambiguities.For others Vatican Council II (with the inference) has a hermeneutic of rupture, with ambiguities and contradictions.Is this true also for the Franciscan Sisters  of the Immaculate and the Vatican?
 
11.For me AG 7, Vatican Council II ( all need explicit faith and the baptism of water for salvation) does not contradict LG 16 ( saved with implicit invincible ignorance). Is this true also for the Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate ?'
12.Pope Pius XII and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 do not criticize Cardinal Richard Cushing the Archbishop of Boston. It does not say that those saved with the baptism of desire and baptism of blood are not visible to us.So there is no salvation outside the Church.There is no defacto salvation outside the Church and de facto, all need the baptism of water.Instead the Holy Office has criticized Fr.Leonard Feeney after inferring that the baptism of desire is explicit for us in real life (defacto) and so is a (defacto) exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
 Did the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 make a mistake according to the Franciscans of the Immaculate/Vatican ? -Lionel Andrades
 

1
Posted by at
Labels:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)