Thursday, August 9, 2012

THE SSPX NEEDS TO ADDRESS THE AMBIGUITY IN THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949

There is ambiguity for example on religious liberty because of the ambiguity in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston.


The first few paragraphs of the Letter supports Fr. Leonard Feeney but the latter paragraphs could suggest that implicit desire is an exception to the dogma.


How can implicit desire be an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus? Where are the known cases?


The cardinal-archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits assumed that a non Catholic could be saved in invincible ignorance or with  implicit desire and that these cases are personally known to us. For them there are known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation.So other religions were also paths to salvation for them and non Catholics have a moral right to proclaim their religion and to teach it just like Catholics.


The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) Chapter may have recognized this error in Vatican Council II and the Letter. So the communiqué (July 19, 2012) says there are no exceptions; no known possibilities of salvation outside the Church.


Bishop Williamson and some of the SSPX priests on videos on YouTube consider those saved who have not had the Gospel preached to them through no fault of their own( invincible ignorance) etc as exceptions to the dogma.


Vatican Council II only acknowledges these cases but does not state or imply that they are exceptions to the Syllabus of Errors or the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
-Lionel Andrades





The ambiguity in Vatican Council II comes from assuming that the dead are visible and it is traced to the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/08/the-ambiguity-in-vatican-council-ii.html#links

YOUTUBE BISHOP RICHARD WILLIAMSON MAKES A DOCTRINAL ERROR