Suprema Haec said: "It is clear, from what is stated above, that the ideas proposed by the periodical From the Housetops  as the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church, are far from being so and are very dangerous not only for those in the Church but also for those who live outside her.

Hey bosco, being the local self proclaimed militant authority in the matter, please, be the first to ever answer this burning question:

*Exactly* what is so "very dangerous not only for those in the Church but also for those who live outside her" of preaching the literal meaning of the dogma that outside the Church there is no salvation?

Quote from: The Letter

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.

Fr. Feeney is exonerated by "The Letter" itself.

"The Letter" is in and of itself a double talking heretical docuмent that did nothing - except perhaps double talk itself into state of self contradiction for taking a member of the Church, Fr. Feeney, and making him a member of the Church by desire.

Certainly no one can have any doubt that that Fr. Feeney truly and explicitly longed and desired to be actually united to the Church, therefore, per the conditions dictated within  "The Letter" (bolded), Fr. Feeney indeed remained a member of the Church, at least by (explicit) desire - according to "The Letter" that is.


"The Letter" is so dumb.

 

Stubborn,

Your objection that the letter was heretical is answered in #3 in the original post.

Anyone else?

I don't know if I really buy into the fact that it was faked. It didn't have to be as I will explain in a minute. Still, it's clear that these men were apostate already, so the opinion of the Pope to them would hardly matter.

The opinion of the Pope has nothing to do with this. The point is, if I circulate a pamphlet to all the employees in my office, and in the pamphlet I state that my manager approved the pamphlet when he actually didn't, I am going to be severely reprimanded by my boss regardless of whether the contents of the pamphlet were true or not. My boss wouldn't be reprimanding me for the content of the pamphlet but for telling all of my coworkers he approved when he did not. If the pamphlet had false information on top of that, all the greater would be the reprimand.

So if the Cardinals were to fake a letter and say the pope approved of it, they would be reprimanded immediately - likely they would be defrocked.

The fact is the Pope gave no official approval of the letter. Pope Pius XII said other things that were not in line with Catholic Teaching. I think it's very possible that he may have held the same opinion of this docuмent. He never publically approved of it though. That's what matters. I think if he would have, we might be looking forward to future condemnation of him.

You have obviously not read the letter in its entirety. The letter states, " Accordingly, the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinals of this Supreme Congregation, in a plenary session held on Wednesday, July 27, 1949, decreed, and the august Pontiff in an audience on the following Thursday, July 28, 1949, deigned to give his approval, that the following explanations pertinent to the doctrine, and also that invitations and exhortations relevant to discipline be given:..."

This shows the pope's direct approval.

I can't believe you have the nerve to publicly accuse Pope Pius XII of heresy! In all my years discussing this I have never seen anyone have the nerve to say it. Go look at Pope St. Pius X's catechism quotes on baptismofdesire.com and you will see he states the SAME thing as the letter from the Holy Office. Let me guess, Pope St. Pius X was a heretic too? You have completely lost your faith.

 The fact that there was no protests or public outcry only serves to prove that most of the world had stopped believing in EENS at that point already. It proves that the false council did not appear out of nowhere. Most, if not all of Vatican II's heresies stem from denying this Dogma in one way or another. In fact, Lumen Gentium borrows, almost word for word, from this docuмent to deny the EENS Dogma. I would like to know what you think is heretical about the conciliar "church" if it's not for their denial of this Dogma.

Give me a break! A GLOBAL network of thousands of Cardinals, bishops and priests, and ALL of them stopped believing in EENS?! Now in 2017 you know better than ALL of them? You've truly lost it.

 I think you should notice that the Canon Law is referring to something promulgated by the Apostolic See. The C.E. says " the Apostolic See is the seat of authority in the Roman Church, continuing the Apostolic functions of Peter". The letter was not promulgated by the Apostolic See. Even if the men who wrote it were still Catholic, they were not the Pope and therefore contained no promise of infallibility. It is a letter written by a Cardinal to a bishop. The fact that it contains blatant heresy proves that it's not an act of any sort of Catholic authority.

Oh my gosh. The letter of the Holy Office was issued by the Sacred Congregation, which is a division of the Apostolic See! As I already quoted above, they met in plenary session with Pope Pius XII present, and he approved of the final decision. You really have no business discussing the subject because you are clearly just winging it.

In the bolded parts the letter explains that salvation can be had with implicit desire which means that a person doesn't necessarily have to have faith in Christ or His Church. Hopefully by now you can see how this is not only opposed to Christ's own words but to many Dogmatic pronouncement of the Church.

No it does not mean this at all. If you try to interpret things on your own, you're going to wind up lost. Multiple popes and Doctors of the Church have approved of implicit desire.  St. Thomas Aquinas writes in his Summa in the 13th century, "Man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly". St. Alphonsus Liguori writes in his manual on Moral Theology in the 18th century, "...accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true baptism of water". St. Pope Pius X writes in the Catechism of St. Pius X in the 20th century, "...along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism". The Holy Office writes in 1949 (approved by Pope Pius XII), "...when a person is involved in invincible ignorance, God accepts also an implicit desire". Numerous other detailed examples on explicit versus implicit faith can be found in the Summa Theologica.

You've already declared Pope Pius XII a heretic, so I guess the above are as well?

No it does not mean this at all. If you try to interpret things on your own, you're going to wind up lost. Multiple popes and Doctors of the Church have approved of implicit desire.  St. Thomas Aquinas writes in his Summa in the 13th century, "Man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly". St. Alphonsus Liguori writes in his manual on Moral Theology in the 18th century, "...accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true baptism of water". St. Pope Pius X writes in the Catechism of St. Pius X in the 20th century, "...along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism". The Holy Office writes in 1949 (approved by Pope Pius XII), "...when a person is involved in invincible ignorance, God accepts also an implicit desire". Numerous other detailed examples on explicit versus implicit faith can be found in the Summa Theologica.

You have been refuted on that numerous times and yet you refuse to listen and keep twisting St. Thomas Aquinas. What "implicit desire" means in context of these quotes from Saints is desire which is implicit from person's explicit faith in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity and accepting teaching authority of the Catholic Church. Explicit faith in Christ and the Trinity is necessary for salvation, as St. Thomas Aquinas himself teaches. If one believes in those doctrines, but does not yet know about baptism, he has "implicit desire for baptism".

St. Thomas DOES NOT teach that an "invincibly ignorant" person can have "implicit desire" for baptism without explicit faith in Jesus Christ and the Trinity and be saved while remaining in the state of invincible ignorance. Explicit faith in Jesus Christ and the Trinity is absolutely necessary for salvation without exceptions. An "invincibly ignorant" Jєω or Muslim cannot be saved. On the other hand, the 1949 Holy Office letter implies that EENS is limited to those who know that Jesus Christ instituted the Catholic Church (implication: those who don't know about it can be saved without entering the Church). That is blatantly heretical.

Pgs. 7 - 13 are the most relevant to this "discussion," but the whole booklet is important.

Again:
 https://www.scribd.com/docuмent/32685492/Architects-of-Confusion-The-Unmasking-of-the-Plot-against-the-Church-s-Foundational-Doctrine-on-Salvation

It's quite clearly a fake.

Any "analysis" of the letter of the Holy Office, which does not include what the victimized CENTER had to say about it, is false and uncharitable on its face.

https://www.scribd.com/docuмent/32685492/Architects-of-Confusion-The-Unmasking-of-the-Plot-against-the-Church-s-Foundational-Doctrine-on-Salvation

The Center SPECIFICALLY published the above small booklet called Architects of Confusion to SPECIFICALLY address THIS Holy Office letter in question!!  It also briefly covers their doctrinal position, its defense and what the media and modernists would not tell about the so-called Boston Heresy Case.  (Which, by the way, was the Center accusing Arch. Cushing of heresy - not the other way around.)  This is the same hierarchy and its descendants who later would also high-handedly abuse Arch. Lefevbre.  What would you think if no one listened to the Arch.'s "side of the story" but just supported his, and our, modernist enemies?  But liberals and neo-trads never have been noted for fairness, objectivity, or true love of God.        

I can't believe the Feeneyites are still trying to use the argument that baptism of desire is somehow related to modernism. We can see those in the Church teaching it well before modernism even existed - St. Alphonsus, St. Bellarmine, Council of Trent all the way back to the Church Fathers. It has absolutely nothing to do with modernism.

The fact remains that Rome has given its final word on what the teaching of the Church is in the letter of the Holy Office. It's not up for negotiation after that, so there is no other "side of the story". The facts show that the letter was authentic, and no one in this forum has shown any solid proof otherwise.