The sedevacantists, traditionalists and liberals cite the baptism of desire as an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They imply that these cases are visible and known.Otherwise how could they be exceptions. This is the common inferernce. No one seems to question it. Since they are visible and known, they become exceptions.This is irrational. Since in reality we cannot know any such case.Where are the visible and known cases of people saved with the baptism of desire?
The sedevacantists CMRI provide a long list of references to the baptism of desire. Yet in this list ( produced below) no where is it said that these cases are visible and known to be exceptions to the dogma.This has to be wrongly inferred .They make the inference like the liberals, and then say every one needs to enter the Church except for those with the baptism of desire etc.
Similarly the sedevacantist Fr. Anthony Cekada has produced a long list of references to the baptism of desire, over the centuries. In none of the quotations is it said that the baptism of desire is visible and known in real life. He infers that the baptism of desire is explicit. He then concludes like the liberals, that these baptism of desire cases are relevant and exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
He considers Catholics, who do not accept that the baptism of desire is explicit ( and an exception to the stict interpretation of the dogma on salvation) as being in mortal sin.There are no known baptism of desire cases in the present times and he wants Catholics to say that there are known cases. If they do not acknowledge this he will consider them to be in mortal sin.
Fr. Cekada expects them to say that they know and can see baptism of desire cases on earth and these 'ghosts' are exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church.
The sedevacantists then claim St. Thomas Aquinas supported the baptism of desire as being visible and known and so an exception to the dogma.They claim that the popes also made the same inference.
Well, if they did, they were wrong.Any one who says the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus implies he can see people in Heaven, people who are dead for us. This is irrational.
Yet upon this irrationality sedevacantists and traditionalists, especially those associated with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, have accepted a new theology. It is a fantasy theology and they consider this normal.It is ironical that they still support the baptism of desire as being an exception to the dogma. Since it was the enemies of the Church, who wanted to get rid of the dogma who campaigned for the baptism of desire to be accepted.Popes in addressing their campaign have had to refer to the baptism of desire and the strict interpretation of the dogma, at the same time. The opponents of the Church made the baptism of desire relevant.
So when the popes refer to the baptism of desire it is in response to the opposition. Otherwise why would they have to mention the baptism of desire which has nothing to do with the dogma. It is irrelevant to the dogma on salvation since these cases do not exist in our reality.
I am reproducing here a blog post on the baptism of desire .
Where does the Catholic Church teach that the baptism of Blood and of Desire are physically visible and known to us in the present times (2014) ?
The baptism of desire and blood are always hypothetical for us and so cannot be a defacto exception in 2014 for all needing the baptism of water for salvation.
The following list is from the sedevacantist CMRI's website.
Baptism of Blood and of Desire
From the teachings of the Popes, the Council of Trent, the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the Roman Martyrology, the Fathers, Doctors and Theologians of the Church
1. COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1563)
Canons on the Sacraments in General (Canon 4):
“If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them (sine eis aut eorum voto), through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justiflcation; let him be anathema.”
Decree on Justification (Session 6, Chapter 4):
“In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the ‘adoption of the Sons’ (Rom. 8:15) of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effectedexcept through the layer of regeneration or a desire for it,(sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto) as it is written: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God’ (John 3:5).”
2. ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI (1691-1787)
Moral Theology (Bk. 6): “But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind␅ [flaminis] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost Who is called a wind [flamen].Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the CanonApostolicam De Presbytero Non Baptizato and the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”
So it is a de fide teaching. Where does St.Alphonsus Liguori infer that these cases are physically visible to us in the present times? Does he state that the baptism of desire is an explicit exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus? No!
This is wrongly assumed by the CMRI.
3. 1917 CODE OF CANON LAW On Ecclesiastical Burial (Canon 1239. 2)
“Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized.” — The Sacred Canons by Rev. John A. Abbo. St.T.L., J.C.D., and Rev. Jerome D. Hannan, A.M., LL.B., S.T.D., J.C.D.
Commentary on the Code: “The reason for this rule is that they are justly supposed to have met death united to Christ through Baptism of desire.”
Again there is no mention of a case personally known in the present times. The baptism of water is administered in the present times. So there is no known exception in the present times.
4. POPE INNOCENT III
Apostolicam: To your inquiry we respond thus: We assert without hesitation (on the authority of the holy Fathers Augustine and Ambrose) that the priest whom you indicated (in your letter) had died without the water of baptism, because he persevered in the faith of Holy Mother the Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland. Read (brother) in the eighth book of Augustine’s City of God where among other things it is written, “Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes.” Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned (Denzinger 388).
Debitum pastoralis officii, August 28, 1206: You have, to be sure, intimated that a certain Jew, when at the point of death, since he lived only among Jews, immersed himself in water while saying: “I baptize myself in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.”
We respond that, since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, when He says to the Apostles: “Go baptize all nations in the name etc.” (cf. Matt. 28:19), the Jew mentioned must be baptized again by another, that it may be shown that he who is baptized is one person, and he who baptizes another... If, however, such a one had died immediately, he would have rushed off to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith (Denzinger 413).
Again there is a reference to possibilities. These are hypothetical cases.Theoretical cases are not visible in the present times (2014). I can accept implicit for us baptism of desire. I accept it in principle. I know it is not an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney. The Holy Office 1949 made a mistake and so did Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits at Boston.
5. POPE ST. PIUS V (1566-1572)
Ex omnibus afflictionibus, October 1, 1567
Condemned the following erroneous propositions of Michael du Bay:
Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a “pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned” (1 Tim. 1:5) can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remission of sins.
That charity which is the fullness of the law is not always connected with the remission of sins.
A catechumen lives justly and rightly and holily, and observes the commandments of God, and fulfills the law through charity, which is only received in the laver of Baptism, before the remission of sins has been obtained.
So a catechumen could be saved with implicit desire followed by the baptism of water.Either way, with or without the baptism of water, this case is still hypothetical for us.It is theoretical. How can a theoretical case be an exception in the present times(2014) to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. How is it even relevant to the dogma on salvation?
Yet for the CMRI, the SSPX, sedevacantists, traditionalists and progressivists these cases are supposed to be visible. So they are explicit exceptions to the traditional 'rigorist interpretation' ofextra ecclesiam nulla salus.
6. ST. AMBROSE
“I hear you express grief because he [Valentinian] did not receive the Sacrament of Baptism. Tell me, what else is there in us except the will and petition? But he had long desired to be initiated... and expressed his intention to be baptized... Surely, he received [it] because he asked [for it].”
Lionel: Yes and he was saved. Implicit baptism of desire is a possibility and not an explicit exception to all needing the baptism of water.Yet like the CMRI Fr. Jean M. Gleize,professor of ecclesiology at the SSPX seminary in Econe,Switzerland assumes that salvation in Heaven is a visible exception on earth, to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. His objective error was repeated by Cristina Siccardi, who writes for Riscossa Cristiana,Italy. She overlooked the error of Gleize in her book'I'nverno della Chiesa dopo Il Concilio Vaticano II-i mutamenti e le cause.'
7. ST. AUGUSTINE,City of God
“I do not hesitate to place the Catholic catechumen, who is burning with the love of God, before the baptized heretic... The centurion Cornelius, before Baptism, was better than Simon [Magus], who had been baptized. For Cornelius, even before Baptism, was filled with the Holy Ghost, while Simon, after Baptism, was puffed up with an unclean spirit” (De Bapt. C. Donat., IV 21).
8. ST. THOMAS AQUINAS
Summa, Article 1, Part III, Q. 68: “I answer that, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.
“Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of faith that worketh by charity, whereby God, Whose power is not yet tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: ‘I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the graces he prayed for.’” Lionel: So where do St.Thomas Aquinas and St.Augustine state that the baptism of desire is explicit for us in real life or that we know cases of persons saved as such or that these cases are an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus?.'Zero cases of something are not exceptions',says John Martigioni, the American apologist.For him the baptism of desire is not an exception toextra ecclesiam nulla salus. So even if a person is saved without the baptism of water this would be a hypothtical case. We would accept it as a possibility only. It would not be an exception in the present times to all needing to enter the Church for salvation.It is with this error of visible baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance,that Fr.Fidenzio Volpi OFM Cap, the Commissioner of the Franciscans of the Immaculate, interprets Vatican Council II. This is the error all Catholic religious congregations have to accept, that of the visible baptism of desire and visible salvation in Heaven.
9. ST. ROBERT BELLARMINE, Doctor of the Church (1542-1621)
Liber II, Caput XXX: “Boni Catehecumeni sunt de Ecclesia, interna unione tantum, non autem externa” (Good catechumens are of the Church, by internal union only, not however, by external union). Lionel: St.Robert Bellarmine affirmed the traditional interpretation ofextra ecclesiam nulla salus as that of St.Thomas Aquinas, St.Augustine and Fr.Leonard Feeney.
10. Roman Martyrology
January 23: At Rome, St. Emerentiana, Virgin and Martyr, who was stoned by the heathen while still a catechumen, when she was praying at the tomb of St. Agnes, whose foster-sister she was.
April 12: At Braga, in Portugal, St. Victor, Martyr, who, while still yet a catechumen, refused to worship an idol, and confessed Christ Jesus with great constancy, and so after many torments, he merited to be baptized in his own blood, his head being cut off. Lionel: So even if they were saved outside the visible limits of the Church i.e without the baptism of water they are not exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation in 2014. Implicit baptism of desire is not a defacto exception in the present times to the dogma on salvation.If there is a St.Emerentiana in 2014 it would be known only to God. We cannot say that someone will be saved or has been saved with the baptism of blood or the baptism of desire.This is known only to God.
11. POPE PIUS IX (1846-1878) — Singulari Quadam, 1854:
174. “It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the flood. On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who are affected by ignorance of the true religion, if it is invincible ignorance, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord. Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, lands, native talents, and so many other factors? Only when we have been released from the bonds of this body and see God just as He is (see John 3:2) all we really understand how close and beautiful a bond joins divine mercy with divine justice.” Lionel: Pope Pius IX does not state that those saved in invincible ignorance are visible to us.They are not known to us in the present times.They cannot be known to us since we cannot see them in Heaven.Yet Pope Pius IX is often cited as referring to a visible case which supposedly contradicts Fr.Leonard Feeney. Bishop Bernard Fellay and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre cite the Hindu in Tibet who could be saved in his religion through Jesus and the Church.Then they and the SSPX priests assume that this is a visible case.Then they infer that it is an exception to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney. They make the same mistake as Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani in the Holy Office Letter of 1946. Bishop Bernard Fellay goes further and extends this error in thinking to Vatican Council II. In his last Letter to Friends and Benefactors he considers Nostra Aetate 2 as an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Those who are saved with ' a ray of the Truth'(NA 2) are visible for him.They are also visible for Fr.Pierpaolo Petrucci, the District Superior of the SSPX in Albano,Italy according to a paper he read at an SSPX Conference at Rimini,Italy.
Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (1863): “...We all know that those who are afflicted with invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of men, if they are prepare to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace.” Lionel: Once again we do not see any reference to an 'explicit for us' baptism of desire.Yet it is often assumed that Quanto Conficiamur Moerore refers to an objective case.Then it is implied that this objective case contradicts Traditional teaching on salvation. This is the error made by the Angelus Press of the SSPX (N.America). Angelus Press assumed salvation in Heaven is visible for us on earth to be an exception to Tradition. Fr.Francois Laisney's book 'Is Feeneyism Catholic?' is based fully on this error i.e the visible for us baptism of desire.
12. POPE PIUS XII (1939-1958) — Mystical Body of Christ (June 29, 1943): “As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible organization of the Catholic Church, solemnly declaring that after the example of the Good Shepherd We desire nothing more ardently than that they may have life and have it more abundantly... For even though unsuspectingly they are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer in desire and resolution, they still remain deprived of so many precious gifts and helps from heaven, which one can only enjoy in the Catholic Church.” Lionel: 'those who do not belong to the visible organization of the Catholic Church' and who will be saved or who are saved are not known in 2014.So they are irrelevant to the dogmatic teaching on exclusive salvation.Yet the International Theological Commission assumes that Pope Pius XII is referring to objective cases which are explicit exceptions to the exclusivist ecclesiology of Fr.Leonard Feeney.The ITC error was made by Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J, the present Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.He was formerly the President of the ITC. International Theological Commission (ITC)
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).-International Theological Commission, Christianity and the World Religions 1997. (1)
13. FR. A. TANQUERY,Dogmatic Brevior; ART. IV, Section I, II - 1945 (1024-1)
The Baptism of Desire. Contrition, or perfect charity, with at least an implicit desire for Baptism, supplies in adults the place of the baptism of water as respects the forgiveness of sins.
This is certain.
Explanation: a) An implicit desire for Baptism, that is, one that is included in a general purpose of keeping all the commandments of God is, as all agree, sufficient in one who is invincibly ignorant of the law of Baptism; likewise, according to the more common opinion, in one who knows the necessity of Baptism.
b) Perfect charity, with a desire for Baptism, forgives original sin and actual sins, and therefore infuses sanctifying grace; but it does not imprint the Baptismal character and does not of itself remit the whole temporal punishment due for sin; whence, when the Unity offers, the obligation remains on one who was sanctified in this manner of receiving the Baptism of water. Lionel: Agreed. In principle, yes!.De jure, yes!.Theoretically, in faith,yes!Defacto ( in reality) there is no such case in 2014. Yet the sedevacantists Most Holy Family Monastery,USA reject the baptism of desire since they assume that these cases are visible to us.Then they conclude that these cases would contradict the dogmatic teaching on exclusive salvation in the Church.So for them the saints were wrong.For the MHFM the saints were referring to not implicit for us but explicit for baptism of desire.
“Baptism of Desire which is a perfect act of charity that includes at least implicitly the desire for Baptism by water”;
“Baptism of Blood which signifies martyrdom endured for Christ prior to the reception of Baptism by Water”;
“Regarding the effects of Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire... both cause sanctifying grace. ...Baptism of Blood usually remits all venial sin and temporal punishment...”
This is cited here by the CMRI since this e sedevacantist community assumes that these cases are visible to us. This is a mistake. They use the same error of reasoning to reject Vatican Council II. Without the false premise of being able to see the dead now saved in Heaven, Vatican Council II would be in agreement with extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It would not be a break on the traditional teachings on other religions and Christian communities.
15. FR. FRANCIS O’CONNELL,Outlines of Moral Theology, 1953:
“Baptism of Desire... is an act of divine charity or perfect contrition...”
“These means (i.e. Baptism of Blood and Desire) presuppose in the recipient at least the implicit will to receive the sacrament.”
“...Even if an infant can gain the benefit of the Baptism of Blood if he is put to death by a person actuated by hatred for the Christian faith....”
Assuming that the baptism of desire refers to explicit cases in the present times is the mistake also made by traditionalists Fr.Nicholas Gruner, Robert Sungenis, Roberto de Mattei, Bruno Gherardini, priests of the Franciscans of the Immaculate, Paolo Detto, Editor of Riscossa Cristiana and others.
16. MGR. J. H. HERVE,Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae (Vol. III: chap. IV), 1931
II. On those for whom Baptism of water can be supplied:
The various baptisms: from the Tridentinum itself and from the things stated, it stands firm that Baptism is necessary, yet in fact or in desire; therefore in an extraordinary case it can be supplied. Further, according to the Catholic doctrine, there are two things by which the sacrament of Baptism can be supplied: namely, an act of perfect charity with the desire of Baptism, and the death as martyr. Since these two are a compensation for Baptism of water, they themselves are called Baptism, too, in order that they may be comprehended with it under one, as it were, generic name, so the act of love with desire for Baptism is called Baptismus flaminis (Baptism of the Spirit) and the martyrium (Baptism of Blood). Lionel: Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson,U.S Nuncio to the Ukraine says the baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. He is supported by the Dean of Theology at the University of San Anselm, Rome Fr.P.Stefano Visintin OSB.The Benedictine priest also says that the baptism of desire is not an exception toextra ecclesiam nulla salus since there are no visible cases.
17. FR. H. NOLDEN, S.J., FR. A. SCHMIT, S.J. — Summa theologiae moralis (Vol. III de Sacramentis), Book 2 Quaestio prima,1921
Baptism of spirit (flaminis) is perfect charity or contrition, in which the desire in fact to receive the sacrament of Baptism is included; perfect charity and perfect contrition, however, have the power to confer sanctifying grace. Lionel: Same as above. The Franciscans of the Immaculate have to accept that the baptism of desire is an explicit exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Then then have to claim that all salvation mentioned in Vatican Council II is explicit for them on earth. Only with this irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II can they expect to be allowed by Pope Francis to offer the Traditional Latin Mass and have teaching faculties once again. Similarly the Fischer More College,USA must accept the same irrational interpretation of the baptism of desire, being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16), seeds of the Word (AG 11), a ray of the Truth(NA 2) etc to be allowed to offer the Traditional Latin Mass.This seems the condition set by Bishop Michael Olson at the Fort Worth diocese, USA.The FSSP priests in his diocese meet this condition.
18. FR. ARTHUR VERMEERSCH, S.J.,Theologiae Moralis (Vol. III), Tractatus II, 1948:
The Baptism of spirit (flaminis) is an act of perfect charity or contrition, in so far as it contains at least a tacit desire of the Sacrament. Therefore it can be had only in adults. It does not imprint a character; ...but it takes away all mortal sin together with the sentence of eternal penalty, according to: “He who loves me, is loved by my Father” (John 14:21). Lionel: He is mentioning a hypothetical case. We cannot administer the baptism of spirit or desire. We cannot see it with the physical eye. Cushingism says it is visible for us and an objective exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus as interpreted by Fr.Leonard Feeney.Cushingism is common among Catholics.
19. FR. LUDOVICO BILLOT, S.J.,De Ecclesiae Sacmmentis (Vol. I); Quaestio LXVI; Thesis XXIV - 1931:
Baptism of spirit (flaminis), which is also called of repentance or of desire, is nothing else than an act of charity or perfect contrition including a desire of the Sacrament,according to what has been said above, namely that the heart of everyone is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe, and to love God, and to be sorry for his sins. Lionel: Same as above. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishop's Secretariate for Divine Worship and also its Doctrinal Committee has assumed that this baptism of spirit or baptism of desire is explicit and known in the present times. So they assume that those saved with the baptism of desire etc are exceptions to all needing to convert into the Church in the present times.All do not need to convert, defacto for the USSCB. Jeb Sullivan recently on a USCCB video of the Daily Mass Readings presented the necessity of believing in Jesus without the necessity of being a member of the Catholic Church.
20. FR. ALOYSIA SABETTI, S.J., FR. TIMOTHEO BARRETT, S.J.,Compendium Theologiae Moralis, Tractatus XII [De Baptismo,Chapter I, 1926:
Baptism, the gate and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire, is necessary for all unto salvation...
>From the Baptism of water, which is called of river (Baptismus fluminis), is from Baptism of the Spirit (Baptismus flaminis) and Baptism of Blood, by which Baptism properly speaking can be supplied, if this be impossible. The first one is a full conversion to God through perfect contrition or charity, in so far as it contains an either explicit or at least implicit will to receive Baptism of water... Baptism of Spirit(flaminis) and Baptism of Blood are called Baptism of desire (in voto). Lionel: 'Baptism, the gate and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire, is necessary for all unto salvation...'.The baptism of water is defacto necessary for all for salvation. In the present times 2014 every one needs the baptism of water for salvation and there are no defacto(known) exceptions.The baptism of desire is a possibility known only to God and if there is someone saved as such it would not be a defacto exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation in the present times.
Baptism of the Spirit (flaminis) consists in an act of perfect charity or contrition, with which there is always an infusion of sanctifying grace connected...
Both are called “of desire” (in voto)...; perfect charity, because it has always connected the desire, at least the implicit one, of receiving this sacrament, absolutely necessary for salvation.
Lionel: The error of the baptism of desire being explicit and not implicit is extended to Vatican Council II by Cardinal Walter Kaspar, Bishop Athansius Schnieder, Michael Voris and the priests of the SSPX -SOS (Resistance).This is a theological error which has come from the Holy Office 1946 when it was assumed that salvation in Heaven is visible to us on earth. -Lionel Andrades