Archdiocese of Detroit : the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made a factual mistake.Changes teaching on Vatican Council II

Yesterday Jan.26,2015 I e-mailed the Archdiocese of Detroit and I hope I will get a reply which will be specific. May be the Archbishop or his representative will tell me that 'this is what we specifically teach' and so 'we agree or disagree with you on these specific points'.

I hope I will not get a general reply saying that the Church teaches that Fr.Feeney was wrong and the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma. This is my specific point too but I am saying it was wrong.Since 'the Church' is saying that these cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to persons  objectively visible. This would be irrational.The Church would be referring  to persons, seen in the flesh for them to be exceptions to all needing the baptism of water in 2015.But these cases do not exist in our reality! If they did not exist in our reality, if we could not see them physically they would not be exceptions in 2015 to all needing faith and baptism for salvation.If they are not there they cannot be exceptions.

These persons are dead and are now in Heaven so they cannot be exceptions to the dogma,I repeat. They cannot be relevant to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center. 

Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani, who issued the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 on behalf of 'the Church', made an objective mistake. It is a fact of life that we cannot see the dead. So possibilities, hypothetical cases are not exceptions to the centuries old interpretation of the dogma according to the popes and saints, right up to St.Maximillian Kolbe in the 1930's.

So basically I am asking the Archdiocese of Detroit if they agree that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, which did not have the signature of the Secretary of the Holy Office, was objectively wrong?

The letter was placed in the Denzinger by the liberal Fr.Karl Rahner who also assumed that the dead are visible exceptions to the centuries old 'rigorist interpretation' of the dogma.So the Denzinger too has made an objective mistake.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has also picked up the error in CCC 1257.

If the Archdiocese agrees that it was a factual mistake then they would have to change their present teaching on Vatican Council II in religious education.

Vatican Council II would not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. LG 16 ( saved in invincible ignorance/good conscience), LG 8 ( elements of sanctification and truth), UR 3( imperfect communion with the Church), NA 2( a ray of the Truth),AG 11 ( seeds of the Word) etc would refer to hypothetical cases. So they would not be exceptions to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Centers.Also they would refer to cases who are saved also with the baptism of water, since this is the dogmatic teaching.Finally, on the practical level, we cannot meet or see any one who is an exception to the dogma, someone who does not need faith and baptism for salvation.

-Lionel Andrades

 

 

Copy of the letter sent on Jan.26,2015.An acknowledgement is awaited from the diocese.

proffice@aod.org

To the Most Rev. Allen H. Vigneron,

Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Detroit,

Archbishop's Office
1234 Washington Blvd

Praised be Jesus and Our Lady.

I am a lay Catholic in Rome and have a blog Eucharist and Mission in which I write mostly on the subject of extra ecclesiam nulla salus in agreement with Vatican Council II.

In the Archdiocese of Detroit it is probably taught, like in other US. dioceses, that there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Please let me know how would you respond to the two questions to clarify this issue.

TWO QUESTIONS

1) Do we personally know the dead now saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc,can we see them, are they physically visible to us in 2015 ?

2) Since we do not know any of these cases, in real life, they are not visible for us, there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, or Ad Gentes 7 which states 'all' need 'faith and baptism' for salvation ?

If you answer is :1) No we do not know any case of the dead now saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience etc and we cannot physically see them in 2015 and 2) since they are not known; not visible to us they are not explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II - then you are rational.

You would be saying that there are no known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus in 2015.

Defacto, objectively, you and I would not know of any such case.If there was any such case, it would only be known to God.And if there was such a case of someone saved, or going to be saved, without the baptism of water, it would be a possibility known only to God and unknown to us human beings.It would not be an exception. Possibilities are not exceptions. Hypothetical cases cannot be defacto exceptions in the present times.

So do you think the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made an objective mistake when it alleges that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the historical interpretation of the dogma , the 'rigorist interpretation' ?

How could Fr.Leonard Feeney be wrong when there cannot be any known exception?

Many Catholic priests in Rome to whom I have spoken to say there are no known exceptions and the Marchetti Letter of 1949 made an objective mistake. It assumed that the dead are visible, to be exceptions to the dogma.It is a fact of life, that we cannot see these exceptions.

What is your view?
John Martignoni , the Director of Evangelisation and Stewardship in the diocese of Birmingham in Alabama says ,'Zero cases of something are not excceptions to the dogma'.Also there is Fr.Stefano Visintin OSB, Dean of the Faculty of Theology at the Pontifical University St.Anselm, Rome. He says there are no known exceptions.
The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are possibilities, he said, but are not known exceptions to the traditional teaching on salvation.

Prof. Visintin was speaking with me on Oct.15,2013 at the University of St.Anselm in Rome.

So did the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 issued by Cardinal Francesco Selvagginai Marchetti make a mistake for you ? Was this document magisterial or only an interoffice communication?

Vatican Council II is in agreement with Fr.Leonard Feeney and the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, for me.

So Vatican Council II, without the irrational inference(visible-dead who are exceptions to the dogma), would be saying, all Muslims, Jews and other non Catholics, need to convert onto the Catholic Church with 'faith and baptism' (Ad Gentes 7) for salvation ( to avoid Hell).

Would you agree?

Could you kindly e-mail me your reply and I will place your answer on my blog for the information of other Catholics who read it.

In Christ

Mr.Lionel Andrades

______________________________