The first part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO) supports extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).The second part wrongly assumes there are personally known cases of non Catholics saved with the baptism of desire, baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance (I.I) outside the Catholic Church.
So BOD, BOB and I.I are projected by LOHO as being exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.
LOHO was referenced at Vatican Council II by the liberal ecclesiastics even though it had an objective mistake.It violated the Principle of Non Contradiction when it assumed non Catholics saved in Heaven were also visible on earth,to be exceptions to EENS.They were at two places at the same time.
We now know that there are no known cases of BOD, BOB and I.I for them to be relevant or exceptions to EENS, as it was interpreted over the centuries.
So this is human error, a factual mistake. It cannot be magisterial since the Holy Spirit cannot make an objective mistake.
Cardinal Ratzinger referenced LOHO in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and approved the New Theology based upon the confusion between what is invisible and visible, implicit and explicit.
His friend Fr.Karl Rahner sj placed LOHO with the error in the Denzinger.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF), the then Holy Office in 1949, confused what cannot be seen as being seeing in LOHO.This error was repeated by the Prefect of the CDF, Cardinal Ladaria on March 1,2018.At the Placquet Press Conference when asked a question he mentioned Lumen Gentium 8 ( elements of sanctification and truth in other religions) as being exceptions to EENS.He also assumed that there were known non Catholics saved outside the Church,which would be unknown to him, where the Catholic Church subsists( LG 8).
Based upon this same confusion, a philosophical error, an empirical error, in March 2016(Avvenire) , Pope Benedict interpreted Vatican Council II ( Cushingite) as being a rupture with 16th century EENS.Since unknown cases of BOD(LG 14), I.I ( LG 16) etc, were objective examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church, for him.
LOHO states
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.
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 contradicts the dogma EENS by assuming hypothetical cases of BOD, BOB and I.I are objective examples of non Catholics saved outside the Church without faith and baptism (AG 7).
The LOHO has to be re-interpreted with the first part supporting Feeneyite EENS and the second part, not contradicting the first part.
-Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment