Those who accept the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 make Vatican Council II a rupture with Tradition :popes can avoid this

E-mail correspondence

Thank you for this clear explanation. I just re-read the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office.. I do not find any affirmation in this Letter of known visible cases of Non-Catholics being saved outside of visible entry into the Catholic Church. 

Lionel:

Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949

This is a positive line it affirms traditional EENS and calls it an infallible statement.So far so good.

Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member -Letter of the Holy Office 1949

Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441 says it is always required that one be incorporated into the Church actually as a member to avoid the fires of Hell.

So then why does the Lettter say it is not always required that someone be incorporated into the Church actually as a member?

 Why? Since for the Letter it is necessary that one have the desire for the baptism of water and this desire would be enough for salvation.

but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949

So the desire for the baptism of water of an unknown catechumen has become an exception to the necessity of all needing to be incorporated into the Church actually as a member.

The unknown case of someone being saved without the baptism of water has become a known case of someone saved outside the Church and this contradicts the dogma EENS.

Someone who is invisible for us in real life is a visible exception to the teaching on all needing to be incorporated into the Church actually as a member.

So a hypothetical is not a hypothetical case.

A hypothetical case has to be interpreted as being an explicit case and then it is inferred that every one does not need to be incorporated into the Church as a member.

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

The 'infallible statement' says all need to enter the Church for salvation, all need to be incorporated into the Church but here the Letter suggests that only those who know and not those who are in ignorance. Not all in general.

Why? SInce a person in invincible ignorance is assumed to be an exception to the infallible statement.

He is assumed to be a person saved outside the Church in invincible ignorance, who is personally known to us. Only since he is a personally known and visilbe case he becomes an exception to the dogmatic teaching. So the new doctrine is only those who know and not every one in general.

There are visible exceptions it is implied in the Letter, otherwise how could there be an exception to traditional EENS. An invisible person cannot be an exception.

So the Letter is saying that there are physically visible and known cases of people saved outside the Church and hypothetical cases are not just hypothetical cases but actual exceptions to EENS.

Since Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center would not accept this new Cushingite doctrine they are criticized in the Letter.

So when I read the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office I find many inferences of allegedly known visible cases of non Non Catholics being saved outside of visible entry into the Catholic Church when I know that practically there can be no such case.If there was any such person he or she would be in Heaven and known only to God.

________________________________

The letter only lays out the conditions for the possibility of Non-Catholics being saved outside the Church.

Lionel:

 If it just did that it would be fine.But it re-interprets BOD, BOB and I.I as being exceptions to all needing to be incorporated into the Church.It so boldly rejects the traditional interpretation of EENS. 

__________________________

 Those conditions by their very nature are invisible to us: namley, invincible ignorance and an implicit desire and longing to belong the Church which is animated by perfect charity.

Lionel.

Yes.And so I affirm Feeneyite EENS which you both do not.

I say every one needs to be incorporated into the Church as a member for salvation.

So Vatican Council II is not a rupture with the dogma EENS for me. Vatican Council II is Feeneyite for me.Is it the same for you?

___________________________________________

 I hope Lionel can see that he's attributing to the 1949 Letter (and to us) something that neither the Letter nor we affirm.

Lionel:

I hope I have shown you the exact text where the Letter tells us that not every one needs to be incorporated into the Church as a member. This is magisterial heresy.

It changes the meaning of the Nicene Creed.It becomes 'I believe in three or more known baptisms for the forgiveness of sins, desire, blood and invincible ignorance and they all exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.'

You also make Vatican Council II a rupture with Tradition by using this irrationality.-Lionel Andrades