I have received an e-mail from Brother Thomas Augustine M.I.C.M saying that the following report on this blog, does not represent the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary on Vatican Council II.
“Monday, November 5, 2012 Father Leonard Feeney 's community celebrates the Year of the Faith:model for SSPX”.
He wrote this report ' does not reflect our position on Vatican II.'
I have just written to Brother Thomas Augustine asking for a clarification on the points raised in two reports about the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.Here it is. -L.A
______________________________________________
Dear Brother Thomas Augustine MICM,
Thanks for responding.I remember corresponding with you though I was confused as to which of the two communities you were at.Now I am not.
However it is not clear still:Brother Andre Marie MICM is the Prior of one community and you are the Rector or Prior of this community of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary ?
I recall asking you repeatedly if the baptism of desire was an explicit exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus . You did not reply. Neither was this question answered by the other community.
Perhaps we could finally clarify the issue. Your reply to the following two questions would be helpful.
1. Do we know in the year 2012 any one saved in invincible ignorance, the baptism of desire, a good conscience, seeds of the word (AG 7), imperfect communion with the Church ?
2. If we do not know any of these cases in 2012 can they be considered exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors?
With reference to the two reports on EucharistandMission are you saying:
1.Ad Gentes 7 is contradicted by Lumen Gentium 16 ?
2.Vatican Council II contradicts extra ecclesiam nulla salus?
3. You reject the baptism of desire or implicit desire with the baptism of water ?
4. In either case(3) you consider them explicit and so an exception to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney ?
5. There is no irrational premise being used in Vatican Council II ?
6. You still affirm the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus which does not mention any exceptions ?
7. The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary still hold what the media calls the 'rigorist interpertation' of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus?
8. Implicit desire is a known exception to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church?
9. Your community believes all non Catholics in the present time (2012) need to convert into the Catholic Church to go to Heaven avoid Hell?
10.'All who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church' does not contradict the dogmatic teaching, which says all need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation?
11.Without the visible- dead- saved premise Vatican Council II agrees with Tradition?
12.It is a fact that we cannot see the dead on earth?
13. So if the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 implied that we could see the dead it would be a factual mistake?
14.The Archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Richard Cushing did not affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus, he assumed, that there were known exceptions to the dogma?
15.Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger may not have known that the baptism of desire is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus?
Your answers will help in a clarification of the two reports. Also please give me permission to quote you.
In Christ
Lionel Andrades
Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door.-Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II