Can you help me see where the Letter of the Holy Office of
1948 holds the heretical view? That is, do you think it must be interpreted that way necessarily?
Lionel:
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
This is heresy.
The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
(EENS) states every one needs to be a member of the Catholic Church for salvation. It does not mention the baptism of desire etc as an exception. Since the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance can only be hypothetical. They cannot be known concrete people in our life time.This is something obvious.
So for centuries they were referring to
This is something obvious. So they did not hypothetical cases only. BOD,BOB and I.I without the baptism of water can only be hypothetical. elaborate upon it over the years. For example St. Thomas Aquinas held the strict the interpretation of the dogma EENS as did St. Augustine. Aquinas mentions the man in the forest in invincible ignorance but does not state that this is a known person saved outside the Church. The Letter of the Holy Office in that line above in red assumes that there are exceptions to EENS. If there are exceptions then there would have to be known people saved outside the Church. Invisible people cannot be exceptions. But BOD, BOB and I.I are always invisible for us human beings. So if there was a hypothetical case, a possibility, a case only known to God, it still cannot be an exception to EENS. It has no connection to EENS for us human beings. In that line above and in the criticism of Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center, the Letter used a false premise ( invisible people are visible) and inference( there is known salvation outside the Church) to also contradict the Catechism of Pope Pius X 1
From the Catechism of Pope Pius X
16 Q. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?
A. Baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation, for our Lord has expressly said:
"Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into
the Kingdom of God."
The Church in Particular
1
A. To be a member of the Church it is necessary to be baptised, to believe and
profess the teaching of Jesus Christ, to participate in the same Sacraments, and
to acknowledge the Pope and the other lawful pastors of the Church.
24 Q. To be saved, is it enough to be any sort of member of the Catholic Church?
A. No, to be saved it is not enough to be any sort of member of the Catholic
Church; it is necessary to be a living member.
27 Q. Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church?
A. No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church,
just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah,
which was a figure of the Church.
11 Q. Who are they who are outside the true Church?
A. Outside the true Church are: Infidels, Jews, heretics, apostates,
schismatics, and the excommunicated.
13 Q. Who are the Jews?
A. The Jews are those who profess the Law of Moses; have not received
baptism; and do not believe in Jesus Christ.
14 Q. Who are heretics?
A. Heretics are those of the baptised who obstinately refuse to believe some
truth revealed by God and taught as an article of faith by the Catholic
Church; for example, the Arians, the Nestorians and the various sects of Protestants.
So the Letter(1949) suggests invisible cases
of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and
being saved in invincible ignorance are visible
exceptions to what the Catechism of Pope
Pius X says above on exclusive salvation in the
Catholic Church.
The Letter assumes that BOD, BOB and I.I
refer to known cases of someone saved
outside the Church and then it infers that BOD, BOB and I.Iare exceptions to the traditional, Feeneyite interpretation of EENS.2
So the Letter (1949) presents known exceptions
to the Syllabus of Errors on an ecumenism of
return when there are no known exceptions,
there are no known cases as such.
The Letter(1949) does away with the past
exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church which is supported by the Syllabus and the Catechism of the Council of Trent.
This is a concrete error.Since without this
irrationality in the Letter(1949) Vatican Council II (LG 8, LG 14, LG
16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc) is not a rupture
with the the past Catechisms, the dogma EENS, the Syllabus of Errors on ecumenism and the old ecclesiology .
Vatican Council II without this error from
the Letter would be in harmony with Feeneyite EENS, or,
EENS as it was known to the missionaries and
Magisterium of the 16th century.
The Letter (1949) can be accepted in its
first part which is traditional. The second part contradicts the first part. It is
irrational, non traditional and heretical.
-Lionel Andrades
OCTOBER 2, 2016Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston contradicts the
|
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment