Sunday, July 10, 2016

Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary have been defending the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus theologically and not in ' a physical sense'

All these years the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary have been defending the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus( EENS) theologically and not in' a physical sense'.They simply had to say that there are no physical cases of the baptism of desire(BOD).No one can see a BOD case in 2016.They physically do not exist in our reality.Similarly in the past no one could have seen a BOD case with the naked eye.If they existed they would be in Heaven.
So every one needs physically visible baptism of water for salvation.For there to be an exception,the exception would have to be seen.He or she, who is an exception, would have to be known.This person who has been saved or will be saved without the baptism of water would have a name and surname.There is no such case.There cannot be such a person because of the nature of the BOD.It is always invisible.So the hypothetical case of a catechumen who dies before he received the baptism of water,is simply a hypothetical case.It should not have been placed in the Baptism Section of the Baltimore Catechism.Similarly the Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made an objective mistake.Objectively, BOD cases are not explicit. So they could not be an exception to the interpretation of the dogma EENS according to Fr. Leonard Feeney.They are not even relevant to EENS.
The text of that Letter rejects the dogma EENS. This is heresy.
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

Defacto, to obtain eternal salvation one is always required to be incorporated into the Church actually as a member.According to  Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441, it is always necessary to be incorporated as a member for salvation.
Objectively, one cannot choose to  be united to the Church with desire and longing and without the baptism of water .Practically there is no such case.Since one cannot give oneself the grace of the baptism of desire.
So in the Letter( 1949) we have magisterial heresy which was not corrected by the popes and cardinals.
The heresy was then transferred to Vatican Council II.Hypothetical references to salvation are projected as physical exceptions to EENS.LG 16, LG 14, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc are mis-interpreted as physically known persons.They really are meaningless and superflous with reference to EENS.They should not have been mentioned in Vatican Council II but for the error in the 1949 Marchetti Letter.It led about everyone to think wrongly.
Only when it was assumed  that  LG 16 etc are known in a physical sense that Vatican Council II became a break with Tradition and in particular, with EENS.
The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary interpret Vatican Council II(LG 16, LG 8, LG 14, UR 3 ,NA 2 etc)  as referring to people known in a physical sense.Otherwise how could LG 16 etc be exceptions to EENS ?

They can choose to interpret LG 16, LG 14, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc as being hypothetical and not known in a physical sense.Then Vatican Council II would not contradict the Feneeyite interpretatiion of EENS.The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, at the St. Benedict Centers, could then affirm Vatican Council II(Feeneyite) and also the dogma EENS( Feeneyite).They already accept EENS ( Feeneyite) and reject an EENS( Cushingite).
This would be rational and traditional and Vatican Council II would not be controversial.
Then they could inform Ecclesia Dei, Vatican and the bishop of Worcester, USA that this is their rational and traditional position, without rejecting Vatican Council II.They have canonical status and can be an example for the SSPX to follow.
They would offer the Traditional Latin Mass knowing that Vatican Council II is in accord with their strict interpretation of the dogma EENS.This is also their position with reference to the Catechism of the Catholic Church(1995).They interpret all hypothetical cases as being only hypothetical.
This has not been their approach over the years and so there was confusion among the traditionalists.
The SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012 is Feeneyite but the official website of the SSPX( see Feeneyism) is Cushingite.Their website supports the magisterial heresy of the Marchetti Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
While the St. Benedict Centers would oppose the SSPX position theologically and say there are no exceptions, they would assume LG 16, LG 14, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to physical exceptions to EENS.So there were exceptions to EENS in Vatican Council II for them.This was confusing and contradictory.-Lionel Andrades


JULY 9, 2016

Vatican Curia wants the SSPX to accept Vatican Council II as does the St.Benedict Center,Still River in the diocese of Worcester,USA

No comments: