Why did the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston mention implicit desire and being saved in invincible ignorance as if these cases are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? They are not known or visible to us for them to be exceptions.
Why did Pope Pius XII not excommunicate Cardinal Cushing and the Jesuits for suggesting there were known exceptions to the defined dogma?
Implicit desire ( baptism of desire) and being saved in invincible ignorance have nothing to do with the traditional interpretation of the dogma.
Did Pope Pius XII overlook a mistake? So what if someone is saved or not saved with the baptism of desire? It would be known only to God.So how can it be an exception to Fr.Leonard Feeney's literal interpretation?
Why does the Letter of the Holy Office have to explain implicit desire theologically, when we do not know of any explicit case?
How can Pope Pius XII suggest that there is salvation outside the Church when we do not know of a single case saved as such?
Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI did not correct the mistake and allowed it to be included in Vatican Council II.
According to the International Theological Commission website Pope Pius XII suggested there is salvation outside the Church and condemned Fr.Leonard Feeney's exclusivist interpretation. Where are these cases of the deceased- saved outside the Church, without the baptism of water and Catholic Faith ? To whom are they visible on earth?
10. Exclusivist ecclesiocentrism—the fruit of a specific theological system or of a mistaken understanding of the phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus—is no longer defended by Catholic theologians after the clear statements of Pius XII and Vatican Council II on the possibility of salvation for those who do not belong visibly to the Church (cf, e.g., LG 16; GS 22).- Christianity and the World Religions, International Theological Commission (1997)
Did Pope Pius XII mistake de jure cases as being de facto? Did he consider what is hypothetical ( implicit desire) as being known in reality? Did he mix up theoretical cases as being practically known? Where is there (defacto, visible) salvation outside the Catholic Church?
The Letter of the Holy Office should have said that the baptism of desire and salvation in invincible ignorance are not relevant to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.Instead restrictions were placed on the St.Benedict Center. The excommunication was not lifted for some 19 years.Did they want the priest to die excommunicated?
Fr.Leonard Feeney lived to see the same error of 1949 being placed in Vatican Council II. 2
Until today it is being said that Nostra Aetate 2, ' a ray of the Truth' is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It is as if these cases of the deceased saved with ' a ray of the Truth' are known and visible in 2014.
Wikipedia says Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance) is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, repeating the error of the Letter of the Holy Office.
Fr.William Most, EWTN and Jeff Mirus( Catholic Culture) criticize Fr.Leonard Feeney for not knowing that there were exceptions( visible). They call it, on line, 'The 'Tragic Errors of Fr.Leonard Feeney'.
The priest was always innocent. This was the tragedy.
In a prepared statement for the press the former Jesuit (Fr.Leonard Feeney) added: "The conscience difficulty is that the diocese of Boston, under the auspices of Archbishop Cushing, and Boston College, under the auspices of Father John J. McEloney, S.J., both notably ignorant in the field of Catholic theology ... are teaching that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church." - Father Feeney Is Dismissed From Jesuit Order by Rome
Catholic Religious indicate the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made a factual mistake :implicit desire etc is not visible to us