Friday, June 27, 2014

Implicit desire is always implicit. Did the Holy Office assume it was explicit?

I would disagree; "exceptions" do not need to be at all explicit let alone "objectively visible"
If there is an apple in a box of mangoes, the apple is an exception because it is different and because it is there is the box.
An apple in another country is not an exception in that box. Since it is not in the box it cannot be an exception. It has to exist in the box to be an exception.
If there are four tall boys standing at a street corner and a short one joins them then he is the exception. Since he is different and because he is there at the street corner. He exists. He is at the street corner.
For the baptism of desire to be an exception to all needing to convert into the Church with the baptism of water ( and Catholic Faith) there would have to be a case present in 2014. There would have to be a case known to us.This person must exist in our reality.When there is no such visible case how can it be an exception to all needing to convert with the baptism of water.Where is the actual case of someone saved outside the Church ( without faith and baptism) ? There is none.
Yes the baptism of desire is a possibility. It is known to God.It is theologically acceptable with certain conditions. It is not an exception to all needing to convert into the Catholic Church.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 assumes that it is an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney. This is a mistake.
The Holy Office 1949 also implies that we can see the dead now saved in Heaven with the baptism of desire.This is irrational. It is factually incorrect. Objectively we cannot see the dead.
Poor Visibility
(a proposition explicitly condemned by the Council of Trent, which the Holy Office Letter appeals to.)
I don't know of any Church document which addresses this problem i.e the claim of being able to see the deceased now in Heaven who are exceptions to the traditional teaching on salvation.This problem emerged in the 1940's.Then emerged the case of the 'visible-dead'.Invisible cases have been assumed to be visible.This 'visibility problem' was extended to Vatican Council II. The visible cases of those saved with ' a ray of the Truth'(NA 2).
The Catholic Church has always taught that she is a visible society with a visible head and visible members, composed of individuals who are good and bad, some of whom will spend Eternity in Heaven and others in eternal Hell. While the Church is certainly visible, the fate of its members is not.
Agreed and the Church has always inferred before the 1940's that those saved with the baptism of desire are invisible to us in real life. They are not exceptions to anything.This is rational.It is common sense.
I think that you're reading text into the Holy Office Letter that is simply not there.
Any one who says that the deceased saved and happy in Heaven are now physically visible to us is making a false inference. This is the inference which comes across when you read the Letter of the Holy Office.
Since the question is : why did the Letter of the Holy Office in 1949 have to mention implicit desire with reference to Fr.Leonard Feeney? Implicit desire is always implicit. Did the Holy Office assume it was explicit?
Yes it did.
Also millions of Catholics have since then made the same inference and no pope or Vatican Office has corrected this error.
-Lionel Andrades

I talk in terms of visible and invisible only because Catholics in general are unaware that they are using these terms

No comments: