Sunday, December 14, 2014

There was a mistake made by the Magisterium in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case and the error has been incorporated in Redemptoris Missio, Dominus Iesus and other Church documents


There was a mistake made by the Magisterium in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case and the error has been incorporated in other Church documents.The influence, of the objective error in the Letter of the Holy Ofice 1949, can be seen  in Pope John Paul II's Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus.
It has been officially accepted by the Magisterium.The text of Vatican Council II does not state that these cases are defacto known and visible to us.However the Magisterium has assumed they are.
The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are not known to us in personal cases and so they are not exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation, according to Fr.Leonard Feeney. 
Since they are invisible for us they were irrelevant to the traditional interpretation of the dogma.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 assumes that these cases were known and visible in the flesh and so were explicit exceptions to the 'rigorist interpretation' of the dogma.
The excommunication of Fr.Leonard Feeney was an injustice. Also the excommunication was not lifted during Vatican Council II. So there are references to being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire in Vatican Council II- references to irrelevancy.

 
It was also wrongly assumed that there was known salvation outside the Church. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257 it is said God is not limited to the Sacraments. This statement is made based on this error of there being visible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance.It was not realised that these persons would have to be visible and personally known, to make them defacto exceptions to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center, criticised in the Letter.
 This is irrational Cushingism which  uses a premise that concludes in fantasy.  Upon this fantasy ( seeing the dead in Heaven saved with the baptism of desire etc ) a new theology is created i.e all do not need to convert in the present times because there are exceptions ( who are in Heaven!) to the traditonal teaching on salvation.

Here is the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 with the error.
the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel:
In other words they are visible and known to us. It is inferred that we can judge who is saved or going to be saved as such.Otherwise why mention 'united to the Church only by desire'? What has this to do with the dogma ? We do not know any one saved as such. Objectively there is no case. So how can what does not exist in our reality be an exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma on salvation? 

_____________________________________

With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution, , in < Denzinger>, n. 1641 ff.; also Pope Pius IX in the encyclical letter, < Quanto conficiamur moerore>, in , n. 1677).

Lionel:
'who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire'-...Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Here the error is direct and clear. The Letter is saying that you and me must assume that the baptism of desire, a possibility for salvation, is a defacto exception in the present times, to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. In other words, Fr. Leonard Feeney was wrong ,since he was denying defacto, objective, seen in the flesh exceptions to the dogma.They assumed that we could physically see a person on earth who would be saved without the baptism of water and so Fr.Leonard Feeney was wrong
______________________________________

From what has been said it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical , fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel:

The ' periodical , fascicle 3' the magazine From the Housetops, did not state that the baptism of desire was visible and objective. For the person who wrote this Letter, these cases are objective and very real. They are personally known.Otherwise how could they be exceptions?
In other words, Fr.Leonard Feeeny and the St. Benedict Center should have said that the baptism of desire is visible to them in particular cases.

 ______________________________________

Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a "Defender of the Faith," and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities,...-Letter of the Holy Office 1949

Lionel:
The 'catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities', ecclesiastical hierarchy in Boston,  interpreted the baptism of desire etc as being empirically visible and without the baptism of water. These hypothetical cases for  me, known only to God, it is assumed can be physically seen on earth, persons who would be saved without the baptism of water.So Fr.Leonard Feeney was wrong according to Boston.
______________________________________

Finally, it is in no wise to be tolerated that certain Catholics shall claim for themselves the right to publish a periodical, for the purpose of spreading theological doctrines, without the permission of competent Church authority...-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel:
The imprimatur would only be granted to those who assume that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are empirically visible to the naked eye.These people could be seen and met in Boston.1

-Lionel Andrades



1
I accept Christ in the Catholic Church and according to the traditional teachings of the Church, the traditional Magisterium which is supported by Vatican Council II
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/12/i-accept-christ-in-catholic-church-and.html