Latest topics
» Angelqueen.org???
Tue Oct 16, 2018 8:38 am by Paul

» SSPX cannot accept Vatican Council II because of the restrictions placed by the Jewish Left
Wed Apr 18, 2018 5:55 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Vatican (CDF/Ecclesia Dei) has no objection if the SSPX and all religious communities affirm Vatican Council II (without the premise)
Sun Dec 10, 2017 8:29 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Piazza Spagna - mission
Sun Dec 10, 2017 8:06 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Fund,Catholic organisation needed to help Catholic priests in Italy like Fr. Alessandro Minutella
Sun Dec 10, 2017 7:52 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Catholic theocracy- Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) and extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Feeneyite) essential
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:57 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» The Social Reign of Christ the King can be seen based on Cushingite or Feeneyite theology, Vatican Council II with the false premise or without it
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:52 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» When Card. Ladaria and Bp Fellay meet a non Catholic they know he or she is oriented to Hell because the Church lic Church inspired by the Holy Spirit teaches this
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:49 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» No denial from Cardinal Ladaria and Bishop Fellay : two interpretations of Vatican Council II and theirs is the irrational one
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:44 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Ask Cardinal Ladaria a few questions when you meet him
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:42 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Now it is the time for cardinals Kasper and Marx to reject Vatican Council II
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:37 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» No denial from Cardinal Ladaria, CDF : schism from the Left over Vatican Council II
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:35 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Schism over Vatican Council II ?
Sat Nov 25, 2017 9:30 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX recognises that Abp.Lefebvre's writings are obsolete : seminaries have to make the correction
Thu Nov 23, 2017 9:25 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» 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


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

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

Back to top


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