When I asked Robert Sungenis if he could interpret Vatican Council II in agreement with Fr.Leonard Feeney he had no answer.He still has no answer after some three months.Then when a few comments/ questions were placed on Faithful Answers on this subject,they were deleted. Sungenis had no apologetics.
Until today- apologists are not willing to affirm the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney on outside the Church there is no salvation.They do not want to endorse the 'rigorist interpretation' which was the traditional interpretation for centuries.Since they would be up against the Left and their bishops and Parish Priests would desert them.
Robert Sungenis still assumes that invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (he still has not pulled down his video on Youtube with this error). He has been informed and he has reasoned it out.In public to support the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney ?! Would they call him a sedevacantist, or a traditionalist like
the SSPX who reject Vatican Council II ?
If they did accuse me of being a sedevacantist or traditionalist I would say that I accept Vatican Council II.Ad Gentes 7 is in accord with Fr.Leonard Feeney and Lumen Gentium 16 is not an exception.
Similarly I am at home with the Catechism the Catholic Church (846) on Outside the Church there is no salvation.
The Catechism (846) supports Fr. Leonard Feeney.There are no known exceptions mentioned in the Catechism.
So I can hold the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in agreement with the sedevacantists CMRI and MHFM.
(The MHFM assumes that the baptism of desire is explicit and so rejects it I know it is implicit and so I accept it. The CMRI assumes that the baptism of desire is explicit and they accept it as an exception to the dogma.. I assume it is implicit and so I accept it as a possibility but not an exception to the dogma. We all affirm the literal interpretation of the dogma as did Fr.Leonard Feeney).
Implicit baptism of desire and the explicit need for all to enter the Catholic Church with no exception does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction. If the baptism of desire was explicit then it would be a contradiction.
This is not the understanding of Robert Sungenis or the SSPX and other apologists.Since for them the baptism of desire is explicit in 2013 and so an exception to Fr.Leonard Feeney.They use this measure in analysing Vatican Council II.
Since salvation alluded to or directly mentioned in Vatican Council II is visible for them, the Council contradicts Fr. .Leonard Feeney.There is ambiguity in the Council. For Robert Sungenis, Ryan Grant and other apologists on Faithful Answers, under certain conditions, known to them, all do not have to convert.So Vatican Council II contradicts the traditional teaching on other religions and an ecumenism of return.With visible to us salvation extra ecclesiam nulla salus is contradicted for them.
The fault likes not in Vatican Council II but in their interpreting the Council according to Cardinal Richard Cushing,assuming there are known and visible exceptions to the dogma on salvation.
-Lionel Andrades
Faithful Answers wants to stay clear of Fr.Leonard Feeney and the truth
Without the Richard Cushing Error the SSPX, Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and Most Holy Family Monastery would be in agreementhttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/06/without-richard-cushing-error-sspx.html#links
Without the Richard Cushing Error the SSPX, Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and Most Holy Family Monastery would be in agreement-2
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/06/without-richard-cuishing-error-sspx.html#links
Most Holy Family Monastery still assume that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/02/most-holy-family-monastery-still-assume.html#links