CathInfo.com

Ladislaus, a question for you.  I tried writing this in another thread but then it mysteriously disappeared, and I think I know why.

The question is -- how do you reconcile your denial of salvation by implicit faith and baptism of desire with the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office?  Letter though it may be, you can't fob this one off on Cushing.  It still comes from the Holy Office with the explicit approval of Pius XII.  I'm not going to let you run away from this one:

"LETTER OF THE SACRED CONGREGATION OF THE HOLY OFFICE
Archbishop Richard J. Cushing
Given on August 8, 1949 explaining the true sense of Catholic doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Church.

This important Letter of the Holy Office is introduced by a letter of the Most Reverend Archbishop of Boston.

The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office has examined again the problem of Father Leonard Feeney and St. Benedict Center. Having studied carefully the publications issued by the Center, and having considered all the circuмstances of this case, the Sacred Congregation has ordered me to publish, in its entirety, the letter which the same Congregation sent me on the 8th of August, 1949. The Supreme Pontiff, His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, has given full approval to this decision. In due obedience, therefore, we publish, in its entirety, the Latin text of the letter as received from the Holy Office with an English translation of the same approved by the Holy See.

Given at Boston, Mass., the 4th day of September, 1952.

Walter J. Furlong, Chancellor

Richard J. Cushing, Archbishop of Boston.

If Pius XII really was Pope, then, don't you owe religious assent to baptism of desire and salvation by implicit faith?  The CMRI is being consistent because they treat implicit faith as a dogma; and I was being consistent because I suspected Pius XII of having lost the office ( although now I am inclined to accept implicit faith ).  Even CM, mock him as people might, is being more consistent by scraping out the last century and a half of the papacy.  

But you and the Feeneyites who accept Pius XII are being undeniably inconsistent, unless you have an explanation.  You talk about how this will all be cleared up in the future but if Pius XII was Pope, it's cleared up now.  

You'd have to give me more than Cushing as a source for the assertion that Pius XII fully approved this docuмent.

During the time of P12, the curia was already thoroughly infiltrated by the evildoers who would bring us Vatican II.

1) I don't buy that P12 authorized this docuмent.
2) Even if he had done so, it's not an infallible docuмent.

Quote from: Ladislaus

You'd have to give me more than Cushing as a source for the assertion that Pius XII fully approved this docuмent.

During the time of P12, the curia was already thoroughly infiltrated by the evildoers who would bring us Vatican II.

1) I don't buy that P12 authorized this docuмent.
2) Even if he had done so, it's not an infallible docuмent.

1.- Actually, the full infiltration did not take place until after John XXIII was elected, but it did start during the reign of Pius XII.

2.- Pius XII was the last Pope to be considered "infallible" so if he approved the docuмent then it would be infallible.

I disagree on both counts.

1) There was already massive infiltration by the time of Pius XII; and it was probably well underway during Pius IX.

2) decrees of the Holy Office are not infallible.  Just because a pope is legitimate (i.e. "infallible") doesn't mean that everything that issues from the Vatican during his pontificate is infallible.  Pius XII would have single-handedly quadrupled the size of the Enchiridion Symbolorum.