Friday, September 22, 2017

Those who accept the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 make Vatican Council II a rupture with Tradition :popes can avoid this

E-mail correspondence

Thank you for this clear explanation. I just re-read the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office.. I do not find any affirmation in this Letter of known visible cases of Non-Catholics being saved outside of visible entry into the Catholic Church. 
Lionel:
Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
This is a positive line it affirms traditional EENS and calls it an infallible statement.So far so good.

Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member -Letter of the Holy Office 1949

Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441 says it is always required that one be incorporated into the Church actually as a member to avoid the fires of Hell.
So then why does the Lettter say it is not always required that someone be incorporated into the Church actually as a member?
 Why? Since for the Letter it is necessary that one have the desire for the baptism of water and this desire would be enough for salvation.

but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949

So the desire for the baptism of water of an unknown catechumen has become an exception to the necessity of all needing to be incorporated into the Church actually as a member.
The unknown case of someone being saved without the baptism of water has become a known case of someone saved outside the Church and this contradicts the dogma EENS.
Someone who is invisible for us in real life is a visible exception to the teaching on all needing to be incorporated into the Church actually as a member.
So a hypothetical is not a hypothetical case.
A hypothetical case has to be interpreted as being an explicit case and then it is inferred that every one does not need to be incorporated into the Church as a member.

Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949

The 'infallible statement' says all need to enter the Church for salvation, all need to be incorporated into the Church but here the Letter suggests that only those who know and not those who are in ignorance. Not all in general.
Why? SInce a person in invincible ignorance is assumed to be an exception to the infallible statement.
He is assumed to be a person saved outside the Church in invincible ignorance, who is personally known to us. Only since he is a personally known and visilbe case he becomes an exception to the dogmatic teaching. So the new doctrine is only those who know and not every one in general.
There are visible exceptions it is implied in the Letter, otherwise how could there be an exception to traditional EENS. An invisible person cannot be an exception.

So the Letter is saying that there are physically visible and known cases of people saved outside the Church and hypothetical cases are not just hypothetical cases but actual exceptions to EENS.
Since Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center would not accept this new Cushingite doctrine they are criticized in the Letter.

So when I read the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office I find many inferences of allegedly known visible cases of non Non Catholics being saved outside of visible entry into the Catholic Church when I know that practically there can be no such case.If there was any such person he or she would be in Heaven and known only to God.
________________________________


The letter only lays out the conditions for the possibility of Non-Catholics being saved outside the Church.
Lionel:
 If it just did that it would be fine.But it re-interprets BOD, BOB and I.I as being exceptions to all needing to be incorporated into the Church.It so boldly rejects the traditional interpretation of EENS. 

__________________________

 Those conditions by their very nature are invisible to us: namley, invincible ignorance and an implicit desire and longing to belong the Church which is animated by perfect charity.
Lionel.
Yes.And so I affirm Feeneyite EENS which you both do not.
I say every one needs to be incorporated into the Church as a member for salvation.
So Vatican Council II is not a rupture with the dogma EENS for me. Vatican Council II is Feeneyite for me.Is it the same for you?
___________________________________________



 I hope Lionel can see that he's attributing to the 1949 Letter (and to us) something that neither the Letter nor we affirm.
Lionel:
I hope I have shown you the exact text where the Letter tells us that not every one needs to be incorporated into the Church as a member. This is magisterial heresy.
It changes the meaning of the Nicene Creed.It becomes 'I believe in three or more known baptisms for the forgiveness of sins, desire, blood and invincible ignorance and they all exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.'
You also make Vatican Council II a rupture with Tradition by using this irrationality.-Lionel Andrades

If any one says that invisible people are visible in general at the same time on earth with reference to EENS he has contradicted the Principle of Non Contradiction : error of popes from Pius XII to Francis

Image result for picture of pope pius xiiImage result for picture of pope francis

E-mail correspondence

Dear XYZ,
Thank you for your note. I still think that Lionel is setting up a false problem with his language of visible exceptions to EENS.
Lionel:
When XYZ cannot affirm Feeneyite EENS like me, since BOD, BOB and I.I are exceptions ( according to the 1949 Letter, Vatican Council II text for him and Pope Benedict XVI last year in the Avvenire interview ) then he is inferring , implying ,suggesting that there are visible and known people saved outside the Church.
I am simply pointing it out.
___________________________________


Non-Christians are not visible members of the Catholic Church according to Vatican II.
Lionel: No per se.___________________________________


Lumen gentium, 16 speaks of these non-Christians as being ordered, directed, or related (ordinantur) to the people of God in various ways. Pius XII in his 1943 encyclical, Mystici corporis, also says that those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church may be ordered, directed, or related (ordinentur) with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer (Denz.-H, 3821).
Lionel:
Yes here they refer to theoretical possibilities. This is fine.
Nowhere is it said that these are known cases saved outside the Church or that they are exceptions to EENS. The text does not state this. So there is no problem here.
But the liberal theologians made the false inference.They re-interpreted Mystici Corporis for example. For them Mystici Corporis etc were referring to known cases of BOD, BOB and I.I and so Mystici Corporis etc are interpreted as being exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.
The same false inference is made in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office and it has been accepted by all of you at...,
_______________________________________
 


This passage from Mystici corporis is cited by the Holy Office in its 1949 Letter concerning Father Feeney (Denz.-H 3871). LG, 16 likewise cites St. Thomas Aquinas (ST III q. 8 a. 3 ad 1): http://dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/TP/TP008.html#TPQ8A3THEP1.

Lionel:
 Mystici Corporis etc only mentions BOD, BOB and I.I while the Letter goes a step forward in irrationality and heresy and assumes invisible cases of BOD BOB and I.I are visible and known exceptions to Feeneyite EENS. This is a private inference.
Also the Letter was placed in the Denzinger by Fr. Rahner without him correcting the mistake. Instead he referred to the Anonymous Christian theory based on known salvation outside the Church( visible cases of BOD etc).
____________________________________________


Here the Angelic Doctor notes that the unbaptized are members of the Church potentially though not actually. Therefore, they are related to the Church as potential members according to St. Thomas.
Lionel.
And the Angelic Doctor does not state that these are personally known cases. So again this is irrelevant to the strict interpretation of EENS, which he affirmed.
_____________________________________________
 

LG, 14 tells us that only Catholics in full communion with the Catholic Church are "united with her as part of her visible bodily structure."
Lionel.

Since the Church Fathers(Cardinal Cushing etc) assumed that being saved in invincible ignorance was a known exception to the dogma EENS LG 14 could be referring to only those who 'know' and who are not in invincible ignorance. This would be an error.The dogma EENS says every one needs to enter the Church and not only those who 'know' etc.
For me LG 14 here is not an exception to EENS since those who know or do not know and who are saved or not saved would not be an exception to EENS for us human beings.It would only be known to God.
_________________________________________________

 

So Non-Christians and even Non-Catholic Christians are not in full communion with the Catholic Church "as part of her visible bodily structure."
Lionel:O.k but are they on the way to Hell ?______________________________________________

  
Non-Catholic Christians, however, because of their baptism have a certain though imperfect communion with the Catholic Church (UR, 3; Denz.-H, 4188).
Lionel: O.K but are they on the way to Hell ? _______________________________________________
 

Non-Christians are only ordered, directed, or related to the Church in various ways.
Lionel:For me they are on the way to Hell. This is magisterial for me. This is the teaching of the Church before and after Vatican Council II for me.(Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14), Cantate Domino Council of Florence, the Catechism of the Catholic Church interpreted with hypothetical cases just being hypothetical(CCC 1257,845,846 etc)...

_________________________________________________


Now these Non-Christians are visible because they have bodies,
Lionel: Who are these non Christians XYZ is referring to? Does he know someone who among them has been saved without entering the Catholic Church?_____________________________________________________

but they are not within the Church as visible members.
Lionel : There are no such cases for us human beings. So the premise for this passage of XYZ is wrong.
______________________________________________________


If these non-Christians die and go to heaven (because of their invincible ignorance and baptism of desire which Lionel seems to admit are invisible realities), they would only become visible members of the Church when their invisible souls are re-united with their visible bodies at the Parousia.
Lionel:There are no such cases in real life.
__________________________________________


On this side of the resurrection of the body, however, those who are outside of the visible Catholic Church are not visible exceptions to the principle of EENS as taught by Vatican II and the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office.

Lionel:
??
___________________________________________

Also, in spite of what Lionel claims, the 1949 letter is magisterial because it comes from the Holy Office. Moreover, it was the Holy Office that gave permission for this letter to be made public in 1952. Fr. Fenton, the Dean of Theology at CUA at the time, confirmed this before publishing the letter in the American Ecclesiastical Review in 1952.
Lionel:
It has made an objective mistake.
If any one says that invisible people are visible at the same time on earth with reference to EENS he has contradicted the Principle of Non Contradiction. Even when the popes from Pius XII to Francis suggest this they are still wrong.-Lionel Andrades