Friday, May 25, 2012

DID THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949, THE MAGISTERIUM, MAKE A MISTAKE? NO

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was issued to the Archbishop of Boston during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII. It did not make a mistake when it said that every one needs to be incorporated into the church as a member does not exclude those who can be saved with implicit desire.

It means in principle, only as a concept, as a belief there can be non Catholics saved with implicit desire. The Letter if it is saying only in principle ‘it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member’, it  has not made a mistake.However if someone misreads the Letter and assumes those saved with an implicit desire are known to us on earth; they are explicitly known, and so are exceptions, so every one does not need to be incorporated as a member into the Church - this is a mistake.We do not know anyone on earth saved with an implicit desire. Neither do we know anyone in Heaven saved with an implicit desire.

The Letter of the Holy Office supports Fr.Leonard Feeney since implicit desire can only be accepted as a possibility and is irrelevant to the literal interpretation of the dogma, as interpreted by Fr.Leonard Feeney and St.Benedict Center.

When the Letter criticizes Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center it is because they were disobedient to ‘ecclesiastical authority’.So if someone says that the Letter was critical of Fr.Leonard Feeney for denying the baptism of desire, since the baptism of desire is an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma, then this would be saying that the Magisterium made a mistake. This is not true.

If Fr.Leonard Feeney said there is no baptism of desire, in principle or fact, it is irrelevant to his literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

If the media says Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for denying the baptism of desire, then it would mean the Letter made a mistake, since the baptism of desire cannot be an exception to the dogma.

The Letter instead refers to 'the dogma', the 'infallible statement'. The  text of the thrice defined dogma indicates  everyone is required to 'be incorporated into the Church actually as a member'.The dogma does not mention any known exceptions of the baptism of desire etc.This was the Richard Cushing Error. It was the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Cushing and the Jesuits of Boston who assumed that invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire were exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, and of course, to Fr.Leonard Feeney.

Cardinal Cushing and the Jesuits are believed to have tried to include this error in Vatican Council II but were blocked.Invincible ignorance etc in itself is no problem when it is mentioned in the text as long as one does not assume that it is an exception to the dogma.No text in Vatican Council II claims that it is an exception or that we known these cases personally.

However they did manage to create confusion. It seems, to priests today, that Ad Gentes 7 contradicts itself (if one assumes we know cases in Heaven) and Lumen Gentium 16 contradicts Ad Gentes 7 and the centuries old interpretation of the dogma.

Fr.Hans Kung repeated the Cushing Error after Vatican Council II.It seems as if Fr.Hans Kung had built his entire theological edifice on the Richard Cushing Error.

He began writing a series of books on how there is salvation in general for Buddhists, Protestants...and that the infallibilioty of the pope ex cathedra was contradicted with invincible ignorance etc being 'explicit' exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So he rejected the dogmas on infallibility and salvation.
Over time Pontifical Universities, cardinals and bishops, even the SSPX seminaries, would be infected with this error which emerged in the 1940's, years before Vatican Council II, in the Heresy Case not of Fr.Leonard Feeney but the Archbishop and Jesuits in the Archdiocese of Boston.They assumed that there were explicit exceptions to a de fide teaching.They also seemed to misinterpret the Letter as did the secular media in Boston and then the rest of the world.
-Lionel Andrades
________________________________________________

Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door.-Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II.


Nostra Aetate does not contradict Ad Gentes 7
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/05/nostra-aetate-does-not-contradict-ad.html#links

RORATE CAELI CAVES TO POLITICAL CORRECTNESS


Rorate Caeli posted the statement of Rabbi Jack Bemporad as if it was important and removed all comments which mentioned 'Vatican Council II says Jews and other non Catholics need to convert for salvation' and 'the Council is in agreement with the SSPX position on other religions and ecumenism'.There was also no reference to the Catholic News Service report of Cardinal Kurt Koch's talk at the Angelicum when he said that Jews do not have to convert in the present time and the SSPX has to accept this for canonical status.

I am reminded of an Indian priest who was a Secretary at the Pontifical Council for Inter religious Dialogue,Vatican. I met him at his office.He said  the Chuch teaches that Jews,Muslims etc need to convert for salvation. I distributed his statement through the internet.

When I next went to the office,judging from the reaction of the Lady Secretary there, they received many protests.The protests were orchestrated in the sense that whenever someone mentions extra ecclesiam nulla salus it is called anti Semitic and threats follow. Newspapers like The Catholic Herald (U.K) and The National Catholic Register,USA have received these protests and threats and now recently Rorate Caeli.

That Indian priest was immediately sent back to his diocese even though an interfaith meeting was underway at Rome and he could have been useful. It ended well for the courageous priest. He was made a bishop.

Rorate Caeli cannot carry reports on extra ecclesiam nulla salus since it has probably received the usual threats and is protecting the website. They could have it closed.

Rorate Caeli has to pull down comments and not accept any future comment which say Vatican Council II (AG 7) is in agreement with the dogma and there are no exceptions (LG 16).

This is a censorship of the media by those who call themself liberal and secular but are opposed to Catholic doctrine.It’s also teaching Catholics the faith with false interpretations of the Catechism and Vatican Council II.These interpretations are a break from the past and not a ‘hermenuetic of continuity’.

The Jewish Left groups blocking any discussion or reports on extra ecclesiam nulla salus want to strenghthen the concept that the Church does not teach this any more.

Since they control the media they expect us to accept their political propaganda and new teachings of the Catholic Faith. Dissent will be tolerated and projected well- extra ecclesiam nulla salus will be banned and websites and persons blacklisted.

Extra ecclesiam nulla salus is directly related to the SSPX understanding of Vatican Council II, ecumenism and other religions. Yet Rorate Caeli will not touch it otherwise the flood of calls will come in from those who are regularly monitoring this website to keep it in control with political correctness.
-Lionel Andrades
WEDNESDAY, MAY 23, 2012


Vatican Council II states all Jews and other non Catholics need to convert for salvation and so the comments were pulled down. The comments were contrary to the political propaganda at the University by the rabbi

Rorate Caeli does not provide promised report of Cardinal Kurt Koch's talk and statement to the Press on May 16 at the Angelicum.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/05/vatican-council-ii-states-all-jews-and.html

From Fr.Tim Finigan's blog The Hermeneutic of Continuity : If we assume that every one does not need to be incorprated into the Church as an actual member then it is a mistake

shadowlands said...

I am glad Catholic Mission made his comment Father Tim because it made you reply back with a Church teaching I was not previously aware of, but has cheered me up no end!

"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."

The letter later says: "Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.

However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God."

What Good News!

Lionel
It has cheered you up since you assume that implicit desire is an exception to 'there is no salvation outside the Church'and so it is not required that all presently on earth be 'incorporated actually as a member'.

'That one may obtain eternal salvation' we accept ONLY in principle. These cases are personally unknown to us on earth.

So if the Letter or anyone assumes that they are known to us and so every one does not need to be incorporated today as an actual member then they make a mistake.

It's an objective factual oversight since we do not know any of these cases on earth.
-Lionel Andrades

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=25543378&postID=9116883355064238435&page=1&token=1337949237360