Monday, September 29, 2014

For Cardinal Cushing to say that there are known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus is heresy. It is also irrational.He was to give the imprimatur ?!

‘submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation’, when an irrationality is being taught.
 
Christopher:
3) The Holy Office’s decision: You have argued that the Holy Office was erroneous in its decision to condemn Feeneyism, citing that previous Councils and Teachings are contradicted.
Lionel:
1.No Church document before 1949 said that the baptism of desire was visble to us.
2.No Church document before 1949 said that the baptism of desire was an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
3.And yes, there is no Church doument before 1949 which said that there were explicit exceptions to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Christoper:
However, The Holy Office cites the Council of Trent in its decision along with Pope Pius XII’s dogmatic letter on June 29, 1943′
Lionel:
Pope Pius XII and the Council of Trent only refer to implicit desire etc. They do not say that these cases are known and visible to us. They do not say that these cases are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Yet this has been inferred by the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
Christopher:
You mention that the Holy Office’s decision on the pronouncement of Baptism of Blood and Desire being exceptions to the Extra Ecclesiam Null Salus. The Holy Office has not stated they are exceptions but rather that ‘it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved.’ (see link)
 
                                     LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949
Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel:
‘knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ’, those who ‘know’ or Those who do not know and who are are saved with the baptism of desire are not known to us.Why mention this with reference to the dogma?.
 
In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man’s final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (, nn. 797, 807).-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel:
Why mention all this theology when you do not know a single such case in reality ? Did the Holy Office assume that these cases are visible and are  personally known exceptions?
 
The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel:
‘Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member'.Why? Do you know of some exception in the area where you live?
 
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
Lionel:
So a person with implicit desire (which is not explici)t and one who is ‘involved in invincible ignorance’ are visible ? And so they are explicit exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? And ‘ that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member’?
 
These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949

Lionel:
So the Letter is saying that Pope Pius XII assumed implicit for us cases are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and so ‘one may obtain eternal salvation’ under these conditions, and, ‘ it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member’. Not always required that he be a member of the Church ?. Defacto, this would be heresy.
 
Discussing the members of which the Mystical Body is-composed here on earth, the same august Pontiff says: “Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.”-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel:
This is the traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It is Feeneyism. It will soon be contradicted.
 
Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who “are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire,” and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition “in which they cannot be sure of their salvation” since “they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church” (AAS, 1. c., p. 243).-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel:
He is referring to a hypothetical case and assumes that it is relevant to the dogma.
 
With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution, , in , n. 1641 ff.; also Pope Pius IX in the encyclical letter, , in , n. 1677).-Letter of the Holy Office 1949

Lionel:
‘With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire’ .In other words ‘ all united to the Church only by implicit desire’ are physically visible to us and so are explicit exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Centers were wrong.
 
From what has been said it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical , fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
From the Housetops Magazine
Lionel:
They (From the Housetops) did not consider implicit desire as explicit for us and so an exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.They were saying that all need to be formal members of the Catholic Church with no exception.
 
Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a “Defender of the Faith,” and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities,-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel:
The lawful authorities in the Archdiocese of Boston were saying that there were known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
 
and has not even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons because of his serious violations of his duties as a religious, a priest, and an ordinary member of the Church.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel:
Fr.Leonard Feeney would be excommunicated in a few years after this, for holding the traditional interpretation of the dogma and the Archbishop would not deny reports in the secular media saying that the Church has changed its teaching on outside the Church there is no salvation. The Holy Office never objected.
 
Finally, it is in no wise to be tolerated that certain Catholics shall claim for themselves the right to publish a periodical, for the purpose of spreading theological doctrines, without the permission of competent Church authority, called the “” which is prescribed by the sacred canons.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel:
For Cardinal Cushing to say that there are known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus is heresy. It is also irrational.He was to give the imprimatur ?!
 
Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after “Rome has spoken” they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church “only by an unconscious desire.” Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel:
‘submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation’, when an irrationality is being taught.
-Lionel Andrades
________________________________________________
 

No comments: