Sunday, November 25, 2012

The Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith implies that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 corrected Fr.Leonard Feeney for doctrine and being in heresy.The text of the Letter does not state this.


So the SSPX is not obliged to accept that Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for denying being saved with implicit desire or invincible ignorance.

The controversial text in the Letter could apply to disobedience and discipline and not doctrine and heresy.Liberals and dissenters have 'pulled a fast one on us'.
 
Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J, Secretary, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, assumes that Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for denying there was salvation outside the Church.So this is the basis of Cardinal Ladaria's 'theology of religions' and 'ecclesiology of communion'.(International Theological Commission papers).

Cardinal Luiz Ladraia S.J, former Professor at the Gregorian University similar to the Jesuits at the other Jesuit Universities takes it for granted that the Letter of the Holy Office condemned Fr. Leonard Feeney, a former Jesuit.The Letter does not mention that he was excommunication for heresy.

If the cardinal who issued the Letter of the Holy Office assumes that implicit desire was an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, it was a factual error. There are no such known cases on earth. So it would then be an oversight of the magisterium.

When Cardinal Luiz Ladaria assumes that the Letter of the Holy Office and Vatican Council II (LG 16) contradicts extra ecclesiam nulla salus he cannot cite any text to support his view.He can cite the supportt of the secular media and liberals who also imply ,just like him.

There is no magisterial text which states implicit desire and invincible ignorance are known and are explcit or, that they contradict the dogma on salvation-Lionel Andrades

Archbishop Muller and Di Noia identify the premise of the visible dead in the interpretation of Vatican Council II






The SSPX is not obliged to accept something which is implied and is not part of the text of Vatican Council II.

The SSPX is not obliged to accept that there are known exceptions to the dogma when no one at the Vatican can name a single case in 2012.

Before the secular media picks up this implied error of the Council CDF/Ecclesia Dei could make the correction.The error is known to many via the Internet.

Over time traditionalists will be asserting themself when they know there is no explicit- implicit salvation.This is common sense. We cannot see the dead. It is not a theology or personal opinion.It is not a philosophy, though the means of looking at the issue is philosophical or intellectual i.e we cannot see the dead saved on earth.   The Archbishops at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) do not seem aware of the false premise which pervades Vatican Council II.

Example. Non Catholics can be saved with the 'seeds of the word'(AG 11) and there are personally known cases. Since they are explicitly known in 2012 its a contradiction of extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors.

Similarly, non Catholics can be saved in imperfect communion with the Church(UR). There are visible cases today. They then imply that Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma.

The Council text does not state that these cases are explicit or an exception to the dogma. It is all implied.

It is implied that those saved in invincible ignorance and a good conscience are exceptions to the dogma. The text of LG does not state it.

Archbishop Gerhard Muller, the CDF,Prefect implies that invincible ignorance is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus (National Catholic Register).This is the theory of the dead saved and visible which  is used in an interpretation of Vatican Council II.This false premise results in a modernist interpretation of the Council which the SSPX is rejecting.

Ecclesia Dei needs to identify this error for the SSPX reconciliation.

The SSPX should not be  obliged to accept something which is implied and is not part of the text of Vatican Council II.

The SSPX is not obliged to accept that there are known exceptions to the dogma when no one at the Vatican can name a single case in 2012.They can only imply and assume.-Lionel Andrades