Sunday, July 6, 2014

Franciscans of the Immaculate are not obliged to follow the Letter of the Holy Office's factual mistake

There is a factual mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office , an irrationality  which Catholics are not  obliged to follow.1
 The Letter assumes that salvation in Heaven is visible to us.Then these 'physically visible' cases are  assumed to be exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. It is a fact of life that we cannot see the dead.
This is also the common irrational premise ( visible -dead theory) which is used in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.Lumen Gentium 16  (saved in invincible ignorance) is considered to be an exception to Ad Gentes 7 ( all need faith and baptism for salvation). LG 16 it is assumed refers to salvation which is visible for us.
 The Franciscans of the Immaculate must reject the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and its irrational reasoning. Then there would  be no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney. Similarly there would be no exceptions in Vatican Council II to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney. NA 2,UR 3, LG 16,LG 8,AG 11 etc would not contradict Tradition. It would rationally refer to implicit ( physically invisible) salvation in Heaven.It would not be a reference to explicit  salvation in Heaven, visible in the flesh.This is an irrationality. It is upon this irrationality that the liberals and the Vatican Curia have built their theology.Reject the premise and the theology and ecclesiology of Vatican Council II is traditional.
Aside from the factual error another reason for rejecting the Letter of the Holy Office is because of irregularities. 2.
-Lionel Andrades
 

1.

2.
Another fact left unstated in your article is that the letter of the Holy Office to Archbishop Cushing was not an official Act of the Apostolic See, for it never appeared in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis itself. Every author who has written ex professo on the subject has commented upon this mysterious fact. In consequence, the Jesuit Karl Rahner later had to invent a special category in order to provide an excuse for inserting the letter in Denzinger’s Enchiridion. The controversial missive was not put in Denzinger until 1963, the year Rahner retired as editor. We can logically assume that in 1962 (while preparing the 1963 edition) his coup de grace was to insert the unqualified document to stand where it ought not (“he that readeth, let him understand”), and then bow out without taking responsibility. And, are you aware what was (and still is) the “source” Denzinger’s compilation gives for the Holy Office letter? The American Ecclesiastical Review! These revealing facts are essential to an unbiased consideration of the case.
 
 

Vatican wants the Franciscan Friars and Sisters of the Immaculate to accept this irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II

Did you see John Paul II in Paradise? Of course not. We cannot know if John Paul II is really a saint only because there is a canonization.
 
 
 
 
Lionel:
The issue is are there any exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Is the baptism of desire an exception to all needing Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water ?The dogma says every one needs to convert into the Church for salvation. Do we know any one saved outside the Church, who does not need to convert?
So when someone says the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus he is implying that there is a case of a person saved with the baptism of desire and this case is known and visible to us. So it is an exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.
So is there a visible case? Can we see someone dead who is now saved in Heaven with the baptism of desire ? No we cannot.
Even those who have been canonised saints are not visible to us in the flesh. We accept them as saints in faith.
So the baptism of desire, being saved in invincible ignorance(LG 16), imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3), a ray of the Truth (NA 2) etc are not visible to us and so they are not exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
 
This was the error of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.It has led millions of Catholics into error when interpreting Vatican Council II.
The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) assumes that being saved with ' a ray of the Truth'(NA ) is VISIBLE to us. So it becomes a known exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The Vatican Curia assumes that all salvation mentioned in Vatican Council II (NA 2,UR 3,LG 16,LG 8,UR 3 etc) are VISIBLE to us.So Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The Vatican wants the Franciscan Friars and Sisters of the Immaculate to accept this irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II.
-Lionel Andrades

Where does the Letter of the Holy Office mention deceased 'visible to us'? Here

Tell me where is it  said “visible to us” in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. Nowhere.
Lionel:
Here is the text from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 where it is implied that the deceased who are saved and are now in Heaven,are 'visible to us us' on earth.




 
 
   1.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 is implicit (invisible) and known only to God. So why it is mentioned here? Is it assumed that it is explicit and so an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus?) 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).(The Council of Trent mentions the baptism of desire but does not state that it is visible for us or an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus).

2.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. ( Yes hypothetically but is it being implied that these cases are visible to us and so are relevant to extra ecclesiam nulla salus?)

 
3.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. (Those saved in invincible ignorance or implicit desire are not defacto known to us. So they cannot be exceptions to the dogma. This is an error of the Holy Office.There is no known salvation outside the Church.Since being saved with implicit desire and invincible ignorance are not known to us)

4.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.(Those who are united only by desire do not exist in our reality. The Holy Office has made a mistake here too.)

 
5.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,(In the encyclical mentioned Pope Pius XII did not state that those persons “ related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire,” (implicit desire) were explicit for us. Neither did he say there was an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Yet this is implied by the Holy Office).
So by mentioning implicit desire and being saved in invincible ignorance with reference to Fr.Leonard Feeney the Holy Office was implying that these cases were visible and so were exceptions.If they were exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation , for the cardinal who issued the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, then it was being implied in the text of the Letter,that these cases were defacto, in person, visible to us. Only if they were known personally and were visible in the flesh could they be exceptions.
 
Whenever someone says there are exceptions to Fr.Leonard Feeney's traditional interpretation of the dogma he is saying that there are known exceptions, visible to us in real life. -Lionel Andrades