The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in the Diocese of Worcester USA, Fr.Leonard Feeney's community,meet diocesan standards and interpret Vatican Council II as a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. For the MICM and the bishop of Worcester, Bishop Robert J.McManus, some people in Heaven are physically visible to them on earth.These exceptional people, ghosts, are living exceptions to all needing the baptism of water in 2014 to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.This is ridiculous but this is the general understanding of the bishop and the MICM in Worcester.
Like even Cardinal Sean O'Malley, the Archbishop of Boston, they all accept the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.It infers that salvation in Heaven ( baptism of desire etc) is visible to us on earth to be exceptions to the dogma.These ghosts, spirits, phantoms, are allegedly living exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
This new theory in the Catholic Church has also been accepted by apologists Mons. Joseph Clifford Fenton, Fr.William Most and Fr.Michael Muller, C.Ss.R.Their books are sold by the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX).
So for the diocesan bishops of Boston, Worcester and Manchester , the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, both in Still River and Richmond,New Hampshire, and the SSPX priests, those saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance,though now in Heaven, are very real and visible exceptions on earth to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Vatican Council II becomes a break with the past..LG 16(invincible ignorance) contradicts the dogma for all of them. Those saved ,referred to in NA 2,UR 3,LG 8 etc, are exceptions to Traditional teaching for them.In other words,living exceptions.
If the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary accepted Vatican Council II, with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance as being only hypothethical probabilities ( and they cannot be anything else), then Vatican Council II would be in agreement with Fr.Leonard Feeney.Vatican Council II would be Feeneyite.
This would not be acceptable to the bishops who have given Fr.Leonard Feeney's communities official recognition.So novices and postulants with the MCM, Still River and Richmond,N.H, interpret Vatican Council II with this irrationality. The dead are visible for them in the New England area.
None of the MICM communites objected when Bishop Bernard Fellay , Superior General of the SSPX, in his last Newsletter to Friends and Benefactors indicated that NA 2,LG 8 etc refer to physically visible cases, to be exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.He specifically referred to the dogma.How could they object ? The SSPX and the MICM are in agreement with the error and so are the diocesan bishops.
The SSPX priests use Cushingism to interpret the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and Vatican Council II - so do the MICM. The bishops are satisfied and so is the Jewish Left.Cushingism is irrational, non traditional and heretical but it is also politically correct.
There are no existing cases of the baptism of desire etc yet the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 has created a theology as if these cases exist in real life. This theology is used in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.The same theology is used by traditionalists and liberals( modernists heretics).There are no known cases but a theology of existing cases has been explained in the Letter of the Holy Office;precept and means etc.
The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in Worcester have canonical status ahead of the SSPX .They both accept the Letter of the Holy Office with this irrationality ( visible dead exceptions).They both use the same irrationality to interpret Vatican Council II.Both groups are traditionalists.
I reject this irrational inference and do not use it in the interpretation of Vatican Councl II and other magisterial documents. I affirm Vatican Council II in which NA 2,UR 3,LG 8,LG 16 etc are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
I reject the irrational inference used in the Letter of the Holy Office to imply that there are known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney. No such case exists in 2014.
The first part of the Letter supports Fr.Leonard Feeney on doctrine and dogma. The second part is confusing and Cushingite.The Archdiocese of Boston made the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 public, three years after it was issued . The cardinal who issued the Letter,it is reported, had died at that time.The Holy Office never objected.
-Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment