Bishop Charles Morerod indicates the magisterium made a mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office: the dead can be physically seen

Fr.Aldo Rossi, Prior, SSPX,Albano,Italy instead says cases of the dead saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are not physically visible to us.

The Dominican bishop in Switzerland indicates, unintentionally, that the magisterium of the Catholic Church made a mistake.He was the moderator of a thesis on outside the church there is no salvation, when he was the Rector of the Angelicum University, Rome. The student is now Fr.Francesco Giordano, a young Italian priest who offers the Traditional Latin Rite Mass in Rome.

They both assumed that the Letter of the Holy Office 'condemned' Fr.Leonard Feeney and they assumed that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance was physically visible to us to be exceptions to the dogma as understood traditionally.

We now know that the baptism of desire etc are irrelevant to the dogma since these cases are explicit only for God.

Bishop Moreord repeated the error of known exceptions to the dogma in two theological papers of the International Theological Commission.They were Christianity and the World Religions 1997 and the other one was on Limbo,The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without being baptized.

According to Fr.Aldo Rossi these cases are not exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The SSPX priest would be saying that Bishop Morerod made a doctrinal error.

Interestingly  Bishop Morerod has prohibited the SSPX from using Churches in his diocese and he says the issue is 'doctrinal'.

He wants the SSPX to accept Vatican Council II in which being saved in invincible ignorance and a good conscience (LG 16), imperfect communion with the Church(UR ), seeds of the Word, elements of sanctification etc are physically visible and so are exceptions to the SSPX traditional position on other religions and Christian communities.

For Fr.Aldo Rossi they are not exceptions since the deceased saved are not visible to us.

For Bishop Morerod the dead saved and who are now in Heaven are visible to us.If they were not, then the Letter of the Holy Office would not have made a mistake. Since the Letter says that there are visible exceptions to Fr.Leonard Feeney's literal interpretation of the dogma,for him, the Letter is saying that the dead are visible.

The magisterium made a mistake for the Dominican bishop.-Lionel Andrades

ARCHDIOCESE OF SYDNEY PRIEST INDICATES THAT THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE MADE A MISTAKE

On the Internet forum True Catholic, Fr.John George indicates that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 the magisterium, made a mistake. He does not deny this. If he denied it he would have to affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It is easier for him to say that the Magisterium made a mistake by assuming that the baptism of desire was physically visible to us and so a known exception to every one needing to be a visible member of the church for salvation as the dogma teaches.

Fr:John George knows that physically we cannot see any one in 2013 and who is now in Heaven. So those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are not exceptions to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney, who was not excommunicated for heresy.

The priest from the Archdiocese of Sydney says on True Catholic that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 said that the baptism of desire was an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is false. The Letter does not explicitly say this one has to assume it wrongly.Fr.John has assumed that these cases are physically visible to us and so they are exceptions to every one needing to be visible members of the Catholic Church.

This elderly priest is suggesting that the Letter of the Holy Office made a factual error.It assumed that we can see the dead in Heaven physically.Invisible cases are assumed to be visible and so an exception to the infallible teaching.

Perhaps the Archbishop and priests in Sydney are also saying that the Letter of the Holy Office made an objective mistake when they criticize Fr.Leonard Feeney for not accepting the baptism of desire as an exception to the historical understanding of the dogma on exclusive salvation. -Lionel Andrades