Athanasius Contra Mundum in the comments section has been fencing with young lay supporters of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
In one of his comments Athansius uses the stereotype attack:
‘…Feeney was excommunicated for discipline, and the Church chose not to flog a dead horse when he finally did seek reconciliation. That doesn't mean a tacit support of his theological views, especially since they are opposed to Lumen Gentium and the current Vatican II mania which still persists in the hierarchy would never allow that to get away. Rome always tries to avoid schisms and do what's best for the soul.
Feeney's teaching is condemned by the tradition, there is nothing further needed.Feeney and his young supporters opposed to Lumen Gentium (16),Vatican Council II?
They are condemned by tradition?
Athanasius tells supporters of Fr.Leonard Feeney that they are in heresy for rejecting Vatican Council II and the Catechism (which repeats Vatican Council II).
A familiar pattern in the controversy.
Athanasius. assumes the Baptism of desire and invincible ignorance refer to de facto salvation, the stuff you can judge when you meet a Hindu, Muslim or Jew.
Supporters of Fr.Leonard Feeney , for whatever reason are silent, and let Athanasius, assume Lumen Gentium 16 refers to de facto salvation and not a concept(de jure).
Satan is happy as traditionalists argue over a triviality and non issue.
When there is the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus how can Vatican Council II contradict this infallible teaching?
It would mean that we are interpreting Vatican Council II wrongly.
The issue is Lumen Gentium 16.
Why should we interpret Lumen Gentium 16 according to Fr.Hans Kung, Fr. William Most, Wikipedia etc when there is another interpretation? That of popes and Councils.
St.Thomas Aquinas mentioned invincible ignorance as a concept, a possibility known only to God and not as an actual fact that one can judge in a person. For St.Thomas Aquinas everyone had to de facto with no exception enter the Catholic Church to avoid Hell.
So similar would be the argument between Catholic Answers and supporters of Fr. Leonard Feeney.
It would be said that it is a mortal sin for that apologist of Catholic Answers to reject an ex cathedra infallible teaching.He would make a counter charge against those whom he thinks reject Vatican Council II.
And then? The correspondence would probably end as the past indicates.
Firstly, supporters of Fr.Leonard Feeney need to correct Catholic Answers on their interpretation of Vatican Council II as referring not to de facto salvation but de jure salvation. Here is the key.
There is no Catholic document which says that implicit faith refers to de facto and not de jure salvation.
The extra ordinary and ordinary magisterium always assumed that everybody with no exception needed to de facto enter the Catholic Church for salvation.Implicit faith was an exception known only to God. So this is how we interpret the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Vatican Council II and other Church documents.
So the supporters of Fr.Leonard Feeney’s charge of heresy still stands against Catholic Answers.They are opposing extra ecclesiam nulla salus which is an infallible teaching. It does not say that only those who KNOW about the Catholic Church need to enter to avoid Hell (Ad Gentes 7) but EVERYONE WITH NO EXCEPTION. While Catholic Answers cannot call the supporters of Fr.Leonard Feeney heretics since they are not contradicting Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church - which refer to de jure salvation. They affirm the Council which is in accord with the dogma affirmed by Fr.Leonard Feeney.
So the supporters of Fr.Leonrd Feeney reject nothing from any Church document or tradition.
They are not opposed to Lumen Gentium or Catholic tradition.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment