Thursday, May 31, 2012

TRADITIONALIST AND NOVUS ORDO PRIESTS IN SOUTHWARD,U.K ASSUME INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE AND IMPLICIT DESIRE ARE KNOWN EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOGMA

Fr.Tim Finigan a Traditionalist priest in Southwark, England  is unable to say with confidence that he does not know anyone on earth saved with the Baptism of desire and invincible ignorance. Since he assumes that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 says that the baptism of desire is an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma.

Neither are other priests in the diocese of Southwark who offer the Novus Ordo Mass able to provide the answer- even though it is common knowledge that we do not know anyone saved on earth in invincible ignorance or an implicit desire.

With reference to the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 there are two possibilities. The Letter says:

1. Implicit desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are explicitly known and so contradict the literal interpretation of the dogma.There is confusion on this point in the Letter.

2. Implicit desire  and being saved in invincible ignorance are known only implicitly, we do not know any explicit case. So it does not contradict the literal interpretation of  the dogma .

 If the  priests in  Southwark would realize that implicit desire etc can only be implicit, then the Letter of the Holy Office would not contradict ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible statement’( Letter of  the Holy Office 19549). If implicit desire was explicit and we knew these cases on earth,saved, then implicit desire and invincible ignorance  are explicit exceptions tot ‘the dogma’ and the so the Letter of the Holy Office e1949 made a mistake.

Presently priests from  Southwak are saying that the  Holy Office made a mistake buy endorsing ‘the dogma, ‘the infallible teaching’. The  text of the dogma is the literal interpretation  of  extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It is in agreement with the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.

Fr. Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for  disobedience to ‘ecclesial authority’ and not for heresy. The Church did not ask him to recant  before the lifting of  the excommunication.

 So when the Letter refers  to the dogma it is referring to Fr. Leonardf Feeney's understanding of the of the dogma. The dogma does not mention any exceptions since the baptism of  desire etc can  only be accepted in principle. This was the teaching the Catholic Church for centuries. If the Letter of the Holy Office assumes that implicit desire is explicit then it is a mistake.

-Lionel Andrades

CANDIDATES WITH A RELIGIOUS VOCATION IN ENGLAND HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS VISIBLE TO THEM

UK BISHOPS AGREE WITH SOUTHWARK VOCATION REPORT ? : BAPTISM OF DESIRE CASES VISIBLE

USCCB, CCBEW, CATHOLIC ANSWERS, CUF IMPLY POPE PIUS XII SUGGESTED IN THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE THAT THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE WAS AN EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS

CONFUSION OVER THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949

DID THE CARDINAL WHO ISSUED THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949 ASSUME THAT THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE WAS VISIBLE AND AN EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA ?

The Latin Mass Society Conference in London speakers in confusion; SSPX could be letting another chance go by

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

Fr.Tim Finigan on The Hermeneutic of Continuity responds on extra ecclesiam nulla salus - 2

Fr.Tim Finigan on The Hermeneutic of Continuity responds on extra eclesiam nulla salus

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

SSPX’S BASIC ERROR IS IN ECCLESIOLOGY : VATICAN COUNCIL II IS A TRADITIONALIST DOCUMENT

The Society of St.Pius X(SSPX) assumes that Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The error is with the SSPX and it is in  ecclesiology. Their  concept of church has changed and it is the same as the liberals since they believe that those saved in invincible ignorance etc are known explicitly to us and so are exceptions to the dogma. The church is no more ecclesiocentric for them. The fault is not with Vatican Council II but with them.

If the SSPX has the humility to admit its error Vatican Council II would emerge as a traditionalist Council for them.

  • If cases of invincible ignorance and being saved with a good conscience are known to them on earth then LG 16 contradicts the dogma on salvation. Then Vatican Council II contradicts extra ecclesiam nulla salus . 
  • If cases of invincible ignorance and being saved with a good conscience (LG 16) are not known to them on earth then LG 16 does not contradict the dogma or Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II. Then Vatican Council II is in agreement with the traditional interpretation of the dogma. 

So it means  Vatican Council II is ecclesiocentric since we do not know any case of a person saved in invincible ignorance etc.

There is only model in Ecclesiology, it is the traditional ecclesiocentric one.

If it is said in ecclesiology that the Church is communion -fine!- however the Church is also ecclesiocentric according to Vatican Council II (AG 7). Vatican Council II is saying that there is exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church. This is a traditionalist document.

If it is said that there is collegiality or another model of being Church, still, the Church is ecclesiocentric.Every one needs to enter the Church with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation ( AG 7) and there are no known exceptions. It is possible for someone to be saved in invincible ignorance and a good conscience and though we accept this in principle, we do not not any particular case on earth for it to be an exception to the dogma and AG 7. So those who need to enter the Church, all of them in the present time with no exceptions, include Protestants and Orthodox Christians.

This is the teaching of the Church in Vatican Council II and we do not know any one saved with the seeds of the Word or in imperfect communion with the Church.

So the SSPX error is in ecclesiology and it spills out in ecumenism, other religions and religious liberty. The error is not there in Vatican Council per se.

There are two questions that the SSPX bishops and priests need to be asked. Could someone in contact with them, ask them these two questions and then e-mail me their answer.

1. Do we know people in Heaven, or on earth, saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire ? Yes or No.

2. If we do not know any such person then those saved in invincible ignorance and a good conscience (LG 16) and the baptism of desire are not exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus i.e there is exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church and there are no known exceptions?
(With reference to Question 1 they may say that it is possible to be saved in invincible ignorance etc. Agree with them and then come back to the question.)

(With reference to Question 2 if they say that the Church teaches that invincible ignorance etc is an exception mention that no magisterial document says that these cases are explicit and so are exceptions to the dogma. Church texts only mention invincible ignorance, implicit desire etc.
Then come back to the question and ask if they know any such person personally.) -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