There is a question with reference to the last post on Mark Shea.
Question:
You are bringing Fr. Feeney into a post to the Mark Shea article?
Lionel:
Are you saying that the Magisterium made a mistake in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case ?
If Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for heresy, that is denying the baptism of desire, then it means that the Magisterium is saying that the baptism of desire is an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney. This is what Mark Shea implies.The Magisterium made a factual error.
Only if cases saved with the baptism of desire etc are known personally in the present times can they be an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney, which was the traditional interpretation for centuries.
Would you know any one in the present times saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance ?
Does the Letter of the Holy Office relative to Fr.Leonard Feeney state that there are known cases? If it does then it made an objective error, since we cannot see the dead.
It means the Magisterium made a mistake, according to Mark Shea and the Jewish Left media.
It is important to remember that the excommunication of Fr.Leonard Feeney was lifted without him having to recant. Instead of the Nicene Creed he chose to recite the Athanasius Creed which says Outside the Church there is No Salvation.
So is Mark Shea saying that the Athanasius Creed and the Nicene Creed have made a mistake or have been found inadequate because they have not mentioned the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance. The Creed does not state that these cases are known exceptions to all needing 'one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' and 'outside the Church there is no salvation'.
Is Mark Shea denying the Creed? This would be a first class heresy. A mortal sin.
For me: the Magisterium has not made a mistake in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case and Fr.Leonard Feeney was never in heresy. He was excommunicated for disobedience among confusion and inconsistencies on the part of the Archbishop of Boston and the Holy Office 1949.
If one uses the Richard Cushing premise in the interpretation of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 then the Letter would be a break with Tradition, it would be heresy and then the Magisterium would appear to have made a mistake.
The Richard Cushing Error implies that de jure statements are de facto known and so are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.For example it is accepted in principle (de jure) that a non Catholic could be saved with implicit desire under certain conditions known only to God.These cases known only to God are assumed to be known in the present times, explicitly, defacto. Then it is assumed wrongly that these cases are exceptions to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.In other words one can see the dead. Mark Shea, Faithful Answers and the Magisterium would be saying we can see the dead. It is a fact that we cannot see the dead. So this would be an objective error.
This was the original mistake of the Archbishop of Boston who penalized Fr.Leonard Feeney for being faithful to the teachings of the Church.
Pope Pius XII could have clarified the issue and said all Jews and other non Catholics need to convert into the Church for salvation and there are no known exceptions, but he probably did not do so for political. reasons.He let the cancer spread throughout the Church.
-Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment