Latest topics
» Rethink "Feeneyism"?
Fri Aug 11, 2017 6:02 pm by tornpage

» Brother Andre Marie MICM, the Prior at the St. Benedict Center does not correct Frs.Brian Harrison and Cekada,Bishops Sanborn,Pirvanus,Kelly and Fellay
Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:24 pm by MRyan

» Revisiting Diocese/Parish Screening Policy
Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:03 pm by MRyan

» When sedes and trads can accept that Pius XII made a mistake then popes since John XXIII are no more in heresy
Wed Jun 28, 2017 3:08 pm by MRyan

» Doctrinal talks were conducted with Fr.Gleize on 'the other side'
Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:08 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Pope Benedict permitted Fr. Jean Marie Gleize to lead in doctrinal talks since he was a liberal ?
Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:59 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Padre Pio told Fr.Gabriel Amorth," It is Satan who has been introduced into the bosom of the Church and within a very short time will come to rule a false Church" -Bishop Richard Williamson
Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:14 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Mons. Brunero Gherardini misled the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and many traditionalists
Sun Jun 25, 2017 7:18 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Official statement from SSPX awaited : Fr.Gleize and other theologians have got it wrong
Sat Jun 24, 2017 10:10 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Brother Andre Marie MICM too is teaching error : Bishop Sanborn cannot report at the Chancery office
Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:50 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Magsiterial Heresy ?
Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:36 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Magisterium should apologise to the SSPX for the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre
Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:34 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Brother Francis MICM made a mistake on Vatican Council II
Sat Sep 26, 2015 5:14 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Legion of Christ universities in Rome adapt to leftist laws
Fri May 22, 2015 7:53 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» CM, SSPX, MICM deny the Faith to please superiors
Thu May 21, 2015 4:44 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX and Church Militant are using the same liberal theology and are unaware of it
Wed May 20, 2015 9:54 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Michael Voris uses liberal theology and yet critcizes Michael Coren
Tue May 19, 2015 10:10 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Fr.John Zuhlsdorf condones Mass for suicide
Tue May 19, 2015 9:18 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Vatican Council II is traditional or liberal depending on how you interpret the Letter of the Holy Office
Mon May 18, 2015 5:57 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Church Militant unable to answer questions on extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Sun May 17, 2015 5:55 am by Lionel L. Andrades

Where does the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 wrongly mention deceased 'visible to us'? Here it does!

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Where does the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 wrongly mention deceased 'visible to us'? Here it does!

Post  Lionel Andrades on Sun Jul 06, 2014 3:21 pm

Tell me where is it  said “visible to us” in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. Nowhere.

Here is the text from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 where it is implied that the deceased who are saved and are now in Heaven,are 'visible to us us' on earth.

  1.In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man’s final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing.

(This is implicit (invisible) and known only to God. So why it is mentioned here? Is it assumed that it is explicit and so an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus?) This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (, nn. 797, 807).(The Council of Trent mentions the baptism of desire but does not state that it is visible for us or an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus).

2.The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. 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. ( Yes hypothetically but is it being implied that these cases are visible to us and so are relevant to extra ecclesiam nulla salus?)

3.However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God. (Those saved in invincible ignorance or implicit desire are not defacto known to us. So they cannot be exceptions to the dogma. This is an error of the Holy Office.There is no known salvation outside the Church.Since being saved with implicit desire and invincible ignorance are not known to us)

4.These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943,  (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire[b].  (Those who are united only by desire do not exist in our reality. The Holy Office has made a mistake here too.)

5.Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who “are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire,” and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation[b], (In the encyclical mentioned Pope Pius XII did not state that those persons “ related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire,” (implicit desire) were explicit for us. Neither did he say there was an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Yet this is implied by the Holy Office).

So by mentioning implicit desire and being saved in invincible ignorance with reference to Fr.Leonard Feeney the Holy Office was implying that these cases were visible and so were exceptions.If they were exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation , for the cardinal who issued the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, then it was being implied in the text of the Letter,that these cases were defacto, in person, visible to us. Only if they were known personally and were visible in the flesh could they be exceptions.

Whenever someone says there are exceptions to Fr.Leonard Feeney's traditional interpretation of the dogma he is saying that there are known exceptions, visible to us in real life. -Lionel Andrades

Lionel Andrades

Posts : 260
Reputation : 384
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum