I am interpreting Magisterial Documents rationally, with the Rational Premise (LG 16 refers to invisible cases only) so there is no possible liberalism. There is no development of doctrine since there are no exceptions for the Syllabus of Errors, the Athanasius Creed etc

 

I interpret the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 (LOHO) rationally. The second part does not contradict the first part which supports traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no exceptions.

How can unknown cases of the baptism of desire and being saved with invincible ignorance be known exceptions of salvation outside the Church and practical exceptions for extra ecclesiam nulla salus?

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith interprets the LOHO irrationally. The second part contradicts the first part; the introductory part. Unknown cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are practical and known exceptions for Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

I am interpreting Magisterial Documents rationally, with the Rational Premise (LG 16 refers to invisible cases only) so there is no possible liberalism. There is no development of doctrine since there are no exceptions for the Syllabus of Errors, the Athanasius Creed etc.-Lionel Andrades

The Letter (1949) can be accepted in its first part which is traditional. The second part contradicts the first part. It is irrational, non traditional and heretical.

Can you help me see where the Letter of the Holy Office of  1948 holds  the heretical view? That is, do you think it must  be interpreted that way necessarily? Lionel: Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always  required that  he be incorporated into the Church actually as a  member...-Letter of the Holy Office 1949 This is heresy. The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus  (EENS) states every one needs to be a  member of the  Catholic Church for  salvation. It does not mention the  baptism of desire etc as an exception.  Since the baptism of desire(BOD),  baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance can only be  hypothetical. They cannot be known  concrete people in our life time.This is something obvious. So for centuries they were referring to  hypothetical cases only. BOD,BOB and I.I  without the baptism of water can only be  hypothetical.  This is something obvious. So they did not  elaborate upon it over the years. For example St. Thomas Aquinas held the  strict the interpretation of the dogma EENS  as did  St. Augustine.  Aquinas mentions the man in the forest in  invincible ignorance but does not state that this is a known person saved outside  the Church. The Letter of the Holy Office in that line  above in red  assumes that there are  exceptions to EENS. If there are  exceptions then there would have to be  known people saved outside the Church. Invisible people cannot be exceptions. But BOD, BOB and I.I are always invisible  for us human beings. So if there was a hypothetical case, a  possibility, a case only known to God, it  still cannot be an exception to EENS.  It has no connection to EENS for us human  beings. In that line above and in the criticism of  Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict  Center, the Letter  used a false premise ( invisible people are visible) and  inference( there is known salvation  outside the Church) to also contradict  the Catechism of Pope Pius X 1 From the Catechism of Pope Pius X 16 Q. Is Baptism necessary to salvation? A. Baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation, for our Lord has expressly said:  "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into  the Kingdom of God." The Church in Particular 9 Q. State distinctly what is necessary to be a member of the Church? A. To be a member of the Church it is necessary to be baptised, to believe and  profess the teaching of Jesus Christ, to participate in the same Sacraments, and  to acknowledge the Pope and the other lawful pastors of the Church. 24 Q. To be saved, is it enough to be any sort of member of the Catholic Church? A. No, to be saved it is not enough to be any sort of member of the Catholic  Church; it is necessary to be a living member. 27 Q. Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church? A. No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church,  just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah,  which was a figure of the Church. 11 Q. Who are they who are outside the true Church? A. Outside the true Church are: Infidels, Jews, heretics, apostates,  schismatics, and the excommunicated. 13 Q. Who are the Jews? A. The Jews are those who profess the Law of Moses; have not received  baptism; and do not believe in Jesus Christ. 14 Q. Who are heretics? A. Heretics are those of the baptised who obstinately refuse to believe some  truth revealed by God and taught as an article of faith by the Catholic  Church; for example, the Arians, the Nestorians and the various sects of Protestants. So the Letter(1949) suggests invisible cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are visible exceptions to what the Catechism of Pope Pius X says above on exclusive salvation in the  Catholic Church. The Letter assumes that BOD, BOB and I.I  refer to  known cases of someone saved  outside the Church and then it infers that BOD,  BOB and I.Iare exceptions to the traditional,  Feeneyite interpretation of EENS.2 So the Letter (1949) presents known exceptions to the Syllabus of Errors on an ecumenism of  return when there are no known exceptions,  there are no known cases as such. The Letter(1949) does away with the past  exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church which  is supported by the Syllabus and the Catechism  of the Council of Trent. This is a concrete error.Since without this  irrationality in the Letter(1949) Vatican Council  II (LG 8, LG 14, LG  16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc) is not a rupture  with the the past Catechisms, the dogma  EENS, the Syllabus of Errors on ecumenism and the old ecclesiology . Vatican Council II without this error from  the Letter would be in harmony with  Feeneyite EENS, or,  EENS as it was known to the missionaries and  Magisterium of the 16th century. The Letter (1949) can be accepted in its  first part which is traditional. The second  part contradicts the first part. It is  irrational, non traditional and heretical. -Lionel Andrades 1 OCTOBER 2, 2016 Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston contradicts the  Catechism of Pope Pius X   http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2016/10/letter-of-holy-office -1949-to.html 2 JANUARY 10, 2016 They assumed that the baptism of desire referred to a case of  someone saved outside the Church then they inferred that the  baptism of desire was an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam  nulla salus  http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2016/01/they-assumed-that-baptism-of-desire.html _________________________________________

Hilary White and Massimo Faggioli interpret the Catechism, Vatican Council II and Letter of the Holy Office with hypothetical cases not being hypothetical : so there is a rupture with Tradition (with graphics)

EXAMPLES OF THE HYPOTHETICAL REFERENCES IN THE CATECHISM FOR THEM WHICH ARE NOT HYPOTHETICAL.
1. 'God is not limited to the Sacraments'(CCC 1257)
'2.all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body'(CC(CCC 846).
3. Those 'justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians'(CCC 818).
4. They are 'joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."(CCC 838).
5. 'the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims'(CCC 841).

__________________________________

EXAMPLES OF HYPOTHETICAL REFERENCES IN VATICAN COUNCIL II FOR THEM WHICH ARE NOT HYPOTHETICAL.

1. 'elements of sanctification and truth'in other religions(LG 8),
2..'good and holy' things in other religions(NA 2),
3..'a ray of that Truth which enlightens' all men(NA 2),
4.'imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3),
5.' people of good will in other religions'(GS 22),
6.' seeds of the Word'(AG 11),
7.'invincible ignorance'(LG 16),
8.'a good conscience'(LG 16) etc.

HYPOTHETICAL REFERENCES IN THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949 TO THE ARCHBISHOP O
OF BOSTON WHICH FOR THEM ARE NOT HYPOTHETICAL.

1.Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.(We do not know who this person is in particular so it is a hypothetical case.)

2.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.(We do not know any one in particular as such so this is a hypothetical case.)

3.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.( If there is any such person he or she would only be known to God. So this passage is irrelevant to the dogma EENS. It cannot be an exception.Since it is a reference to an invisible person for us.)

4.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.(This is a reference to an unknown catechumen)

 5.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.( Again we have a theoretical and hypothetical reference. We do not know who is united to the Church only in desire and will be saved.) -Lionel Andrades

JANUARY 25, 2018

Traditionalists cannot tell Faggioli Vatican Council II can be interpreted in harmony with the past ecclesiology of the Church. This is unknown or unthinkable.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/01/traditionalists-cannot-tell-faggioli.html

Lay Catholics must reject the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office conclusion : expedient religious are teaching it in Catechism classes

Lay Catholics should say no.They must not accept the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston.It violates the Principle of Non Contradiction.It assumes invisible for us baptism of desire (BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) are visible for us.This is not bad enough. It further assumes that these 'known' cases exclude the baptism of water and are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) even though we do not know or cannot know any such case in real life.The Letter heretically concludes that not every one needs to enter the Church Church for salvation.Today the two popes accept this. So do the priests. The lay people follow them.

This irrationality is approved by the Jewish Left (Rabbi Rosen etc) and so from the Parish Priest to the two lving popes it is being taught in Catechism classes throughout the world.

Even professors of philosophy know about this non Catholic irrationality.But they teach it to protect their 'career'.Priest-professors too.

In the parishes, lay Catholics who have important secular jobs, allow the irrationality to be taught to their children, since like themselves, they do not want their children to affirm the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS.

So the political Left in Italy, for example, allows the Benedictine communities to work and pray like St. Benedict taught but not to proclaim exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church as St. Benedict did.

But those lay Catholics who want to proclaim the Truth clearly like St.Benedict, St. Francis of Assisi and the Apostles at the time of Jesus, must note that there is an objective mistake in the 1949-Letter, during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII.There is a factual mistake.The same error in reasoning was transferred  to Vatican Council II.It is being intentionally overlooked by the magisterium today. Even religious communities turn the other way.Good people are pretending that the doctrinal problem does not exist.

They know that there can be two interpretations of Vatican Council II and the expedient one is to accept the Council as a rupture with Tradition.For this to happen they have to accept the ecclesiology; the new theology of the 1949 Letter.Fr.Leonard Feeney was wrong and the Archbishop was correct.

WITHOUT THE FALSE REASONING

The interpretation of Vatican Council II without the false reasoning of the 1949 Letter has the Council as a continuity with Tradition and in harmony with the dogma EENS.There is no rupture with the missionaries and magisterium of the 16th century. Fr.Leonard Feeney was correct and the Archbishop was wrong.This is the interpretation of Vatican Council II lay Catholics must choose.

Lay Catholics who want to live with integrity must affirm that outside the Church there is no known salvation and every one needs to be a visible member of the Church with 'faith and baptism' (Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II) to avoid the fires of Hell ( Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441).
It means all non Catholis in 2017 are on the way to Hell according to Vatican Council II and pre-Vatican Council II de fide teachings.So holding this position is magisterial and Catholic.It is there in the text interpreted without the false premise.

If the priest or nun says that you must also affirm BOD, BOB and I.I tell him or her that you do so.You affirm implicit and invisible for us BOD, BOB and I.I.This is common sense.Since BOD, BOB and I.I can only be hypothetical for us human beings.If any one was saved as such it would only be known to God.So when the popes and saints of the past were referring to BOD, BOB and I.I ,when they were asked about it, it was to a theoretical possibility, it was speculation with good will.It was understood that no one could know of any such case in real life. This was a given.

So affirm hypothetical BOD, BOB and I.I.

If the priest or nun says that the Church teaches visible for us BOD, BOB and I.I and even though it is a mistake we must be in step with the Church, tell him no magisterial document, including Vatican Council II, says we have to interpret BOD, BOB and I.I as being visible.Rome has to come back to the Faith.The inference is left to us since the magisterial text does not state we must affirm visible for us BOD, BOB and I.I. We choose rationality and honesty and not deception.

Visible for us BOD, BOB and I.I is an irrational inference.It is a false choice.It contradicts the Principle of Non Contradiction.How can invisible people in Heaven be known exceptions to EENS on earth? How can we know of someone on earth, a friend or relative, who will be saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church but instead with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance?
So reason and tradition is on the side of the Catholic lay man who discerns.
Affirm Feeneyite EENS. Be in harmony with the magisterium of the 16th century.And also affirm BOD, BOB and I.I. It does not have to be either-or.Things couldn't be better.-Lionel Andrades


Photos from
https://it.pinterest.com/catholic4all/catholic-~-laity-lay-organizations/

So objectively there were no exceptions to Feeneyite EENS and the so Letter of the Holy Office was a classic 'oops'.

A real distinction that has to be made is "objective" and "subjective" which comes from aristotelian-thomistic philosphy. Objectively there is no salvation outside the Church but subjectively God can save someone outside the Church through an extraordinary grace. If you don´t know the difference between "objective" (referring to the thing) and "subjective" (referring to the person) you can´t make theology.

1 hour ago

Great! Now we are making progress.

5 minutes ago

So objectively every one needs to enter the Church for salvation.Subjectively we do not and cannot know of any exception in 2017

4 minutes ago

Subjectively we cannot see or know of any BOD, BOB or I.I case saved. Objectively there are no BOD, BOB or I.I cases.

3 minutes ago

So objectively there were no exceptions to Feeneyite EENS and the so Letter of the Holy Office was a classic 'oops'.

-Lionel Andrades

Let Holy Office 1949 and the Archbishop of Boston be anathema?They were teaching heresy. There are no known cases of the baptism of desire and they postulated exceptions to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

THE BALTIMORE CATECHISM SOLVES THE PROBLEM OF THE UNBAPTIZED WHO THOURGH NO FAULT OF THIER OWN ARE NOT BAPTIZED

Comments from the blog Southern Orders

Regular Reader said...

I am afraid that, based on Our Lord's words (see Jn 3:5), the Sacred and Holy Ecumenical and General Council of Trent defines the opposite to your conclusion: Baptism is absolutely essential to salvation, even for children who have not committed personal sins (Session 5, nº 4):

If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,—whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, —let him be anathema. For that which the apostle has said, By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere hath always understood it. For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have contracted by generation. For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Therefore, the Baltimore Catechism does not solve this question, because it was already solved by this definitive Teaching of the Church.

April 6, 2017 at 4:51 PM

____________________

 Catholic Mission said...

Regular Reader said... 

I am afraid that, based on Our Lord's words (see Jn 3:5), the Sacred and Holy Ecumenical and General Council of Trent defines the opposite to your conclusion: Baptism is absolutely essential to salvation, even for children who have not committed personal sins (Session 5, nº 4):

If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,—whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, —let him be anathema.

Lionel: Let Holy Office 1949 and the Archbishop of Boston be anathema?They were teaching heresy. There are no known cases of the baptism of desire and they postulated exceptions to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

__________________________________________

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7846189835239594160&postID=309114302311606021

Cardinal Richard Cushing and Nostra Aetate picked up the objective error from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949

CUSHING HELPED DRAFT NOSTRA AETATE

Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston played ' a vital role in drafting Nostra Aetate'1.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church then states that 'the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator'.2

CUSHING APPROVED THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE ADDRESSED TO HIM
Cardinal Richard Cushing had accepted the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 addressed to him.It assumed that there were known cases of the baptism of desire which were explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, as held by Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center in Boston.So there was salvation outside the Church for him. Non Catholics could be saved without beinging incorporated into the Church as members.

But there are no such cases, past or present!

This was a mistake in the Letter 1949 which has been repeated in Nostra Aetate.
THE LETTER CONTRADICTS THE DOGMA EENS

The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus over the centuries taught that every one needed to be incorporated into the Church as members. The Letter says the opposite and it was accepted by Cardinal Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston.
PLAN OF SALVATION INCLUDES NON CATHOLICS WHO DO NOT NEED TO CONVERT INTO THE CHURCH

So the Catechism of the Catholic Church of Cardinal Ratzinger also  assumes that the plan of salvation includes non Catholics, who do not need to convert into the Catholic Church, as members.Since there was allegedly known salvation outside the Church.

Nostra Aetate states :

The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions.

and it states:

Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.-Nostra Aetate 2

CUSHING,NOSTRA AETATE  AND THE LETTER PROCLAIMS CHRIST WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF MEMBERSHIP IN THE CHURCH

Nostra Aetate  proclaims Christ without the necessity of membership in the Catholic Church.Since Cardinal Cushing had accepted that there was known salvation outside the Church. In other words at that time or in the past, someone in  Rome or the Archdiocese of Boston  knew the name and surname of someone saved outside the Church; without faith and baptism.This is irrational and non traditional.How could there be known exceptions?
HERETICAL

It is also heretical since it is rejecting a defined dogma by assuming invisible people saved outside the Church were visible.Then it is inferred that they were exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, as it was known over the centuries.
OBJECTIVE MISTAKE

There is an objective error here in Nostra Aetate as it is there in the Letter 1949.There cannot be people saved in Heaven without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church who can be known on earth. Similarly there cannot be people on earth who are going to be saved with the baptism of desire, for example, and without the baptism of water, who are known to us human beings or who can be judged as saved.There is no such objective case and there cannot be one.
SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH FOR CARDINAL CUSHING

According to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus all non Catholics are on the way to Hell.However for Cardinal Cushing there was salvation outside the Church and Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated by him.So Nostra Aetate  3 says:

 The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God.-Nostra Aetate 3
NOSTRA AETATE CONTRADICTS AD GENTES 7

Nostra Aetate 3 contradicts Ad Gentes 7 which indicates all Muslims are on the way to Hell since they do not have 'faith and baptism' needed for salvation.
AD GENTES 7 CONTRADICTS ITSELF: CUSHING EFFECT

However in Ad Gentes 7 also the Cushing Effect is there since it states:

Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it.Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him "-Ad Gentes 7
KNOWN CASES OF BEING SAVED IN INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE

Cushing assumed that being saved in invincible ignorance referred to personally known cases.These known people were saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church,for him. This was the reasoning in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 addressed to him.
NEW DOCTRINE WITH NEW THEOLOGY BASED ON IRRATIONAL PHILOSOPHICAL REASONING.

So Ad Gentes 7 says those men cannot be saved ' who though aware'....In other words not every one with no exception needs to enter the Church for salvation but only those who are aware of Jesus and the Church.Notice the new doctrine created with the new theology based on invisible cases being visible exceptions to the old ecclesiology.
VATICAN COUNCIL II PASSAGES BASED UPON THE LETTER'S CONFUSION

So there are orthodox passages in Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) and there are contradictory passages based upon the confusion in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.The Letter mixed up invisible and visible cases.It then  postulated practical exceptions to the traditional ecclesiocentrism of the Church.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church instead of correcting this error repeats it.-Lionel Andrades 

1.

Second Vatican Council

At the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) Cushing played a vital role in drafting Nostra aetate, the document that officially absolved the Jews of deicide charge. His emotional comments during debates over the drafts were echoed in the final version...-Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cushing

2.

841    The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."-Catechism of the Catholic Church

____________________________________

https://www.thebostonpilot.com/articleprint.asp?id=172093

May 12, 2013

Richard Cushing Error in Ad Gentes 7 and Nostra Aetate

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/05/richard-cushing-error-in-ad-gentes-7.html

Even though informed Catholics are pretending that there are exceptions to Vatican Council (AG 7) and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/05/even-though-informed-catholics-are.html