E-Exchange
Thank you for your note. I think Lionel is conflating visible with knowable.( Lionel : Yes with reference to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). Only a visible and knowable non Catholic saved outside the Church in 2019 could be an example of salvation outside the Church. An invisible person cannot be an objective exception to Feeneyite EENS or EENS as it was known to the Magisterium in the 16th century. So the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) all refer to only hypothetical and invisible cases in 2019 or 1949. So they are not exceptions to the dogma EENS. The Holy Office(CDF) 1949 made an objective mistake, You and...follow it ) As you rightly point out, only God can judge the state of the souls of Non-Christians and Non-Catholics who die outside the Church.(Agreed. So we cannot postulate any one as an exception to traditional EENS). The 1949 Letter of the Holy Office concerning the Fr. Feeney case merely states that the effects necessary for salvation "can also be obtained in certain circumstances" (tunc certis ... obtineri valeant) "only through desire and longing" (voto solummodo vel desiderio) cf. DH (Yes in theory. Agreed. Practically there were no such exceptions known to human beings at that time ) 3869. Lumen gentium, 16 cites the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office so we should understand what it teaches as in harmony with the 1949 Letter.(Yes the Council Fathers also assumed BOD, BOB and I.I were exceptions to EENS. So they picked up the objective error from LOHO. However now, if we interpret LG 16 as referring to only hypothetical cases (and it cannot be anything else) then LG 16 does not contradict the strict interpretation of EENS. It does not contradict EENS for me. For you it does. So you imply that there are known non Catholics saved outside the Church. This is irrational.)
Lionel also has criticized me, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, and Fr. Ludwig Ott for upholding what the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office taught ( In the sense that BOD, BOB and I.I cannot be objective exception to EENS in 1949, 1965 or 2019) There is no essential change between the 1952 and 1969 editions of Fr. Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogmaon this point. In the 1969 edition, however, (which is the text used for the 2018 translation of the Fundamentals published by Baronius Press) Fr. Ott explicitly cites the 1949 Holy Office Letter concerning the Fr. Feeney case, and he also references Lumen gentium, 14-17 and Ad gentes, 7 of Vatican II. I stand with you, Fr. Ott, and Bishop Ahanasius Schneider in understanding this matter.( Those who mix up hypothetical cases as being objective and visible and then postulate them as objective exceptions to Feeneyite EENS I call Cushingites.For me LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NS 2, GS 22 etc refer to hypothetical cases only. So there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict Feeneyite EENS.The Council is Feeneyite)
Lionel is entitled to his opinion, but I don't believe his opinion corresponds to the mind of the Holy Office in 1949 and Vatican II. Let's keep each other and Lionel in prayer.(Lionel is affirming Vatican Council II (Feeneyite) in harmony with EENS ( Feeneyite). You both are affirming Vatican Council ( Cushingite) in harmony with EENS (Cushingite). This is irrational, non traditional and heretical though it is supported by the CDF, the SSPX and the Left).
-Lionel Andrades
-Lionel Andrades
Posts
