From the 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.
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
So Vatican Council II says :
'whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved'(Lumen Gentium 14) and 'all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching'(Ad Gentes 7).
But the Letter (1949) made a mistake.
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
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 long.- Letter of the Holy Office 1949
' the effects, necessary for one to be saved...can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing.
If someone is saved only in desire and longing he is a non existent case for us, he does not exist in our reality, he is a zero case. So how could the Letter state'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'? It is always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member and we do not know anyone saved only with longing and desire.
We don't know any one who will be saved with 'the baptism of desire'.
There are no concrete cases on earth of someone with only and longing.These cases can only be known to God.
There are no known cases of someone on earth saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water.
There are no such cases visible in 2016. We cannot know or not know any such case.They would only be known to God.
So how could the Letter(1949) say, 'Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church...'.The Letter is here referring to a hypothetical case. It is a theoretical case.It is not someone known in real life. O.K. No one will be saved who knowing the Church...but what has this to do with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) which says all need faith and baptism for salvation ?.Zero-cases, invisible cases are not exceptions or relevant to the dogma.
So the Letter made a mistake here. It assumed these cases were personally known and so were relevant to the dogma EENS. So it says 'Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing...'
Then the Letter concludes, '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.'
'Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member...' is a denial of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
It is a denial with a non existing case in our reality,, someone whom it refers to as ' united to her by desire and longing'. This is a theoretical case. How can a theoretical case be an exception to all needing to formally enter the Church?
So it is irrationality when the Letter states,'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.'
It is the denial of a defined dogma with an irrationality. This is heresy. It is magisterial heresy.
It was an objective error.It is a fact of life that we cannot see people in Heaven saved without the baptism of water.
The same error was placed in Vatican Council II.
'whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved'(Lumen Gentium 14) and 'all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching'(Ad Gentes 7).
Yes 'all must be converted to Him' and not only those who 'know' or are 'made known by the Church's preaching'.
Vatican Council II refers to those who 'know' because the Letter (1949) assumed there were known people saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water. It assumed there were known people saved with 'longing and desire', with what the Baltimore Catechism calls 'the baptism of desire'. It infers that the baptism of desire excludes the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.This is how it is generally interpreted. It assumed that 'when a person is involved in invincible ignorance' this is a personally known case. Then it was inferred that this 'unknown' case was a known exception to the dogma EENS. The Letter criticizes Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center for not accepting these 'unknown' cases as explicit exceptions to their traditional interpretation of EENS. The magisterium was saying they could see these exceptions on earth and wanted the St.Benedict Center to say the same.
They were so sure of themself. They incorporated this erroneous teaching in Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14).
They effectively got rid of the dogma EENS and brought a new doctrine into the Catholic Church.Until today, most Catholics have not noticed this.
-Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment