June 21, 2014
Catholic Religious indicate the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made a factual mistake :implicit desire etc is not visible to us
June 17, 2014
June 10, 2014
Archbishop Lefebvre made a mistake on two points : The Letter of the Holy Office and Nostra Aetate etc
Cardinal Ratzinger never corrected him
June 26, 2014
I talk in terms of visible and invisible only because Catholics in general are unaware that they are using these terms
I talk in terms of visible and invisible only because Catholics in general are unaware that they are using these terms
Catholic Religious communities who say the dead- saved are physically visible to them on earth are given churches and religious facilities to manage http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/02/progessivists-conduct-first-holy.html
February 5, 2013
If the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 implied that the dead are physically visible then it is an error : Religious Education in Rome
September 17, 2012
NEW AMERICAN ENCYCLOPEDIA MAKES AN OBJECTIVE MISTAKE
The ambiguity in Vatican Council II comes from assuming that the dead are visible and it is traced to the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/08/the-ambiguity-in-vatican-council-ii.html#links
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/08/the-ambiguity-in-vatican-council-ii.html#links
June 1, 2012
MARCH 27, 2012
The International Theological Commission's position paper Christianity and the World Religions 1997 has an objective factual error and is approved by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger : invincible ignorance is not an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/international-theological-commissions.html
SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2009
CDF(Holy Office) supports Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston in Letter
(Note only in the first part the Letter supports Fr. Leonard Feeney. The second part contradicts the first part )
JUNE 28, 2011
We do not know any case of the baptism of desire so Fr.Leonard Feeney was correct in saying that there is no de facto baptism of desire,that we know of
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2011/06/since-we-do-not-know-any-case-on-earth.html
SEPTEMBER 22, 2017
Those who accept the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 make Vatican Council II a rupture with Tradition :popes can avoid this
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/09/those-who-accept-letter-of-holy-office.html
(Note the first part the Letter supports Fr. Leonard Feeney. The second part contradicts the first part.However when interpreting Vatican Council II use traditional Feeneyism of the first part of the Letter and not irrational Cushingism, in the second part of the Letter. In this way Vatican Council II can be interpreted as not being a rupture with Tradition. )
APRIL 12, 2017
Letter of the Holy Office 1949 teaches anathema contradicts Jesus' teaching in John 3:5 and the Council of Trent http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/04/letter-of-holy-office-1949-teaches.html
(Note:The Conclusion of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 is Cushingite. So it is a rupture with Tradition.)
FEBRUARY 13, 2017
Why must the Franciscans Sisters of the Immaculate and all Catholic religious communities have to accept BOD and I.I as being visible,objective,explicit and seen in the flesh in personal cases, for them to be accepted by Pope Francis and Cardinal Braz de Avez?.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/02/why-must-franciscans-sisters-of.html
JANUARY 11, 2016
The Catholic Encyclopedia (New Advent) has repeated the objective error of the Letter of the Holy Office (1949) : no explicit cases of the baptism of desire
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/01/the-american-encyclopedia-has-repeated.html
JANUARY 8, 2016
The theology mentioned in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, is meaningless and does not apply.In a way they kind of duped all of us, including me
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/01/the-theology-mentioned-in-letter-of.html
Rome made a mistake in 1949 and Fr.John Hardon did not notice it
The Catechumen you refer to is a hypothetical case for you and me. So it is not an explicit exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus : Fr.John Hardon too did not notice this
The Council of Trent, Mystici Corporis no where says that these cases are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus : Rome made a mistake in 1949
Continued
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment