The pope mistakenly assumed there were known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, according to the traditionalists.
Vatican Council II is wrongly interpreted. It is assumed the dead-saved are visible in the flesh.
The SSPX has been using 'the non traditional interpretation of Pope Pius XII'.
Daphne McLeod is aware of this factual error in the writings of Michael Davis.It is a fact of life that she cannot see the dead, now existing in Heaven or Hell.We now know that Archbishop Lefebvre's 'hindu saved in his religion in Tibet' is not an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma on salvation according to Fr.Leonard Feeney. Michael Davis did not know that all salvation mentioned in Vatican Council II is not relevant to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Davis, like Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, assumed that implicit for us salvation is explicit. They mistook what is invisible for us as being visible. He assumed that the dead now saved in Heaven are personally known to us. They are visible in the flesh. They became exceptions to Tradition.So he criticized Vatican Council II. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the SSPX bishops and the SSPX District Superiors have made this mistake.
The error comes from their interpretation of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
According to Michael Davis, Archbishop Lefebvre, Daphne McLeod and the SSPX Pope Pius XII assumed there were known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.Since he believed invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire were exceptions to the dogma on salvation.
For them Pope Pius XII made an objective mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office, when he mistook implicit desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, as referring to people still alive on earth.It is an objective fact that the dead cannot be seen on earth.
Pope Pius XII could be misunderstood by the liberals and traditionalists. Since the first part of the Letter of the Holy Office refers to the dogma and so supports Fr.Leonard Feeney. The second part of the Letter criticizes the priest for disobedience. He did not go to Rome to defend himself. The Letter was originally an inter office communication, from one cardinal to another. It was placed in the Denzinger by Fr.Karl Rahner and was supported by the liberal media.
No pope, cardinal or bishop made the correction or affirmed the dogma as it was known traditionally.The misunderstanding was carried over into Vatican Council II. Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance) according to the liberals contradicted the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and and also the dogma on the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra. It was never corrected by the SSPX.The SSPX never stated that these cases were implicit and not explicit. They were accepted as possibilities but could not be exceptions.
The traditionalists at the St.Benedict Center, USA, the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart, were criticized by the SSPX for still affirming the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.Though they too assumed that Vatican Council II contradicted the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
-Lionel Andrades
____________________________________________
The SSPX has been using 'the non traditional interpretation of Pope Pius XII'.
Daphne McLeod is aware of this factual error in the writings of Michael Davis.It is a fact of life that she cannot see the dead, now existing in Heaven or Hell.We now know that Archbishop Lefebvre's 'hindu saved in his religion in Tibet' is not an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma on salvation according to Fr.Leonard Feeney. Michael Davis did not know that all salvation mentioned in Vatican Council II is not relevant to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Davis, like Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, assumed that implicit for us salvation is explicit. They mistook what is invisible for us as being visible. He assumed that the dead now saved in Heaven are personally known to us. They are visible in the flesh. They became exceptions to Tradition.So he criticized Vatican Council II. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the SSPX bishops and the SSPX District Superiors have made this mistake.
The error comes from their interpretation of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
According to Michael Davis, Archbishop Lefebvre, Daphne McLeod and the SSPX Pope Pius XII assumed there were known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.Since he believed invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire were exceptions to the dogma on salvation.
When one is invincibly ignorant, God also accepts an implicit desire, so called because it is contained in the good disposition of soul by which a person wants his or her will to be conformed to God’s will”. -Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
Pope Pius XII could be misunderstood by the liberals and traditionalists. Since the first part of the Letter of the Holy Office refers to the dogma and so supports Fr.Leonard Feeney. The second part of the Letter criticizes the priest for disobedience. He did not go to Rome to defend himself. The Letter was originally an inter office communication, from one cardinal to another. It was placed in the Denzinger by Fr.Karl Rahner and was supported by the liberal media.
No pope, cardinal or bishop made the correction or affirmed the dogma as it was known traditionally.The misunderstanding was carried over into Vatican Council II. Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance) according to the liberals contradicted the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and and also the dogma on the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra. It was never corrected by the SSPX.The SSPX never stated that these cases were implicit and not explicit. They were accepted as possibilities but could not be exceptions.
The traditionalists at the St.Benedict Center, USA, the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart, were criticized by the SSPX for still affirming the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.Though they too assumed that Vatican Council II contradicted the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
-Lionel Andrades
____________________________________________
AP and Reuters imply Pope Pius XII could see the dead
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/11/ap-and-reuters-imply-pope-pius-xii_15.html#links
The Archbishop of Boston Richard Cushing was in heresy and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was addressed to him.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/01/the-archbishop-of-boston-richard.html
The Archbishop of Boston Richard Cushing was in heresy and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was addressed to him.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/01/the-archbishop-of-boston-richard.html
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/01/the-archbishop-of-boston-richard.html
Same error in SSPX books repeated by Opus Dei university
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/11/same-error-in-sspx-books-repeated-by.html#links
Invincible ignorance etc were never relevant or an issue with extra ecclesiam nulla salus: the Americanists made it one
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/03/invincible-ignorance-etc-were-never.html#links
__________________________________________________
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/02/no-one-to-defend-archbishop-lefebvre.html#links
__________________________________________________
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/02/no-one-to-defend-archbishop-lefebvre.html#links
MICHAEL DAVIS MADE A MISTAKE ON THE ISSUE OF VATICAN COUNCIL II AND OTHER RELIGIONS : ALSO ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY ?
Cristina Siccardi and Prof. Roberto Mattei are making the same error
FRANCISCAN FRIARS OF THE IMMACULATE STAND OFF : ALL SIDES ARE USING THE FALSE PREMISE IN THE INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II
SSPX CONCEDES ERROR IN PUBLICATIONS : MUST POINT OUT THE VATICAN CURIA ERRORS ON VATICAN WEBSITES
The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) concedes there are are factual errors in the books being sold by them.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/02/sspx-concedes-errors-in-publications.html#links
SSPX District Superior Italy makes the same factual error as Muller, Ladaria, Di Noi, Pozzo, Kaspar and Koch
Will Archbishop Augustine Di Noia acknowledge he made an error?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment