Latest topics
» Polish traditionalists handicapped : Archbishop Lefebvre made a mistake
Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:20 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney in the USA when they interpret Vatican Council II with the irrational premise deny the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:18 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Bishop Robert J.McManus and Brother Thomas Augustine MICM,Superior,St.Benedict Center,Still River,MA, interpret Vatican Council II with the 'possibilites are exceptions' error
Mon Nov 06, 2017 8:47 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX must be aware of the deception of Abp.Guido Pozzo and confront it
Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:57 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Two popes must ask all Catholics to affirm Vatican Council II (premise-free) as they do
Mon Oct 30, 2017 5:16 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary Still River Ma., could lose canomical status because of Feeneyism
Sat Oct 28, 2017 5:54 am by Lionel L. Andrades

»  Traditionalists oppose Pope Francis on morals but give him a pass on salvation
Fri Oct 27, 2017 10:06 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Someone needs to help Cardinal Luiz Ladaria, Archbishop Pozzo and Archbishop Di Noia see how they use a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II
Tue Oct 24, 2017 2:53 pm by Lionel L. Andrades

» Robert Siscoe and John of St. Thomas Respond to Fr. Cekada
Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:25 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Still no denial from Abp.Guido Pozzo : SSPX must accept Vatican Council II with a false doctrine and the new theology based on an irrational premise Image result for Photo of Archbishop Guido Pozzo
Mon Oct 23, 2017 7:03 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Five Catholic academics accept the development of doctrine on salvation and Vatican Council II but reject it on morals and the death penalty
Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:32 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Dr.Robert Fastiggi wants Bishop Donald Sanborn and Chris Ferrara to affirm a magisterium in heresy and schism like him
Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:30 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» ]Christine Niles uses the false premise to interpret magisterial documents
Sat Oct 21, 2017 5:30 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX has a right to canonical status when they correct their doctrinal error in the 'chart'
Fri Oct 20, 2017 6:25 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» No one shows Massimo Faggioli his precise theological and philosophical mistake
Fri Oct 20, 2017 6:07 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» 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


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.


Lionel:
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