Holy Office
to Archbishop of Boston, condemning the teachings of Feeney: DS 3866: "Non
enim privatis iudiciis explicanda dedit Salvator noster ea, quae in fidei
deposito continentur, sed ecclesiastico magisterio."-"Our Savior did
not hand over the things contained in the deposit of faith to private judgment
to be explained, but to the magisterium of the Church."
COMMENT: A note on p. 230 of Sennott
says this response was not published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. This is
true, but it still was a decision of the Holy Office, whose translation was
approved by Pope Pius XII. The part just cited is clear from basic theology
Fr.William Most ( EWTN),
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/leonard-feeney-on-no-salvation-outside-the-church-12315
EWTN admits
that the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office(LOHO) was not published in the Acta
Apostolicae Sedis.The LOHO was heretical, irrational and unethical. It says
that not every one needs to be a member of the Catholic Church for salvation. It contradicts two Church Councils. It postulates invisible cases of the baptism of
desire and being saved in invincible ignorance as being visible exceptions for
16th century extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).Modernism?
The
invisible-visible confusion of EWTN is unethical. It indicates that everyone does not need to enter the Church for salvation in the present times, is heretical. It contradicts a defined
dogma. It suggests that Vatican Council II ( irrational) is a break with traditional
EENS. LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc are interpreted irrationally with the invisible-visible confusion. In this way it contradicts EENS as it was interpreted over the centuries. This is schism.
With the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II, the Creeds, Catechisms and Syllabus of Errors etc are changed. This is a rejection.Thier meaning is changed.
Exceptions are created for the past ecclesiocentrism of the Church, when in reality there are no known exceptions.EWTN is dishonest and political.
Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.- Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Not always required ? Why ? Who do we know who is an exception in 1949? What is the name of the person saved without faith and the baptism of water in the present times (1949-2023)? How can invisible cases be exceptions for the dogma EENS?
- Lionel Andrades
No comments:
Post a Comment