Tuesday, August 6, 2013

Robert Sungenis still cannot interpret Vatican Council II in agreement with Fr.Leonard Feeney

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

http://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





 
 

Monsgr.Guido Pozzo can Vatican Council II be interpreted according to Fr.Leonard Feeney ?

Msgr.Guido Pozzo who has been reappointed as the Secretary of Ecclesia Dei could be asked if Vatican Council II can be interpreted in line with Fr.Leonard Feeney; there being no exceptions  mentioned in Vatican Council II to the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Mons Guido Pozzo is remembered for the time of hope, when it seemed the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) would  enter the Church with canonical status.Then the liberals met the pope and objected. They were demanding that the SSPX accept Vatican Council II, not in accord with Fr.Leonard Feeney, but Cardinal Richard Cushing.

Cardinal Luiz Ladaria wanted the Council to be interpreted with a visible to us baptism of desire, seeds of the word (AG 11) etc.Unfortunately this is the only one, of two interpretations which the SSPX understands of Vatican council II so they rejected the Council as before and the talks ended.
 
Similarly during the doctrinal talks Mons. Guido Pozzo ,Cardinal Luiz Ladaria and the SSPX theologians were all interpreting Vatican Council  II according to Richard Cushing.
Now if Mons Pozzo is willing to say that Vatican Council II can be interpreted according to Fr.Leonard Feeney then this opens a new way for the SSPX to enter the  Church with full canonical status.
 
The Council would be traditional , and since it affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus  it has the same traditional position as the SSPX on other religions, an ecumenism of return and a moral obligation to work for a Catholic political state.
-Lionel Andrades
 

Faithful Answers wants to stay clear of Fr.Leonard Feeney and the truth

Ryan Grant is not willing to to say on Faithful Answers  -and neither EWTN, Catholic Answers, Catholics United for the Faith etc,- that we do not know any exceptions in 2013 to the dogmatic teaching,on all needing to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation? So Fr. Leonard Feeney is a convenient scapegoat.
 
Writing on extra ecclesiam nulla salus on Faitful Answers he is not willing to go on record as being a supporter of Fr.Leonard Feeney. How can he say that all Jews and Muslims in 2013 need to convert into the Catholic Church is the official teaching of the Catholic Church ? So even though he does not know any exception he will claim that the baptism of desire is an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
 
He can only do this if he uses the unofficial teaching of the Catholic Church, the popular interpretation, on salvation and extra ecclesiam nulla salus,which assumes we can see the dead saved in invincible ignorance etc for them to be exceptions.
 
Since he cannot in public hold the 'rigorist interpretation' of  Tradition on this issue, he will claim that being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are known-to-all-of-us exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma.
 
In the first installment in a series of reports on extra ecclesiam nulla salus, he has already told us that the Church Councils did not know about this great discovery of the 1940s, of the baptism of desire being relevant to the dogma which they defined, three times and did not  mention.
 
He also explains the dogma with reference to the times it was issued and restricts it to that time, as if he would do the same with the dogma on the Trinity or Mary the Mother of God.
 
Ryan Grant writes:
At length, what about Protestants? Do we believe that all Protestants are going to hell? This is a difficult question, but the common teaching of theologians on this subject is that they do not necessarily go to hell. Here what we relate is to be distinguished from the question of the salvation of non-Christians, which will be taken up in the section on Baptism of desire. 
So after having written that the Church is necessary for salvation and all need to be visible members of the Church he is now ready to claim there are known exceptions in 2013. So he will contradict himself.
Are all Protestants going to Hell ? Yes according to the Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441, Pope Eugene IV ex cathedra.
Yes according to Vatican Council II, Ad Gentes 7. All need faith and baptism for salvation. Protestants do not have Catholic Faith, which includes the faith and moral teachings of the Church, to avoid mortal sin,  and the necessity of the Sacraments.
Yes according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846 which says all need to enter the Church 'as through a door' and cites AG 7.
Yes according to Dominus Iesus 20 which mentions that Jesus died for all but to receive this salvation all need to enter the Church, the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation.
Yes according to Redemptoris Missio  55 which says it must be remembered in inter-religious dialogue that the Church is the only means of salvation and in N.10 the same message is repeated.
Ryan Grant cannot say Protestants need to convert for salvation (to avoid Hell) since he assumes that the baptism of desire is known to us in the present times and so is an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr. Leonard Feeney.

 

Redemptoris Missio states:
 
 10. The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all.

1.Salvation is granted to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church.
2.Salvation is also granted to those who do not explictly believe in Christ and have entered the Church (and who are unknown to us. They are hypothetical cases. For us they can only possibilities.)

N.1 is not contradicted by N.2 . Since N.1 is the ordinary means of salvation ( the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, John 3:5 etc) and N.2 refer to cases known only to God. Since they are not known to us in the present times, they are not exceptions to the dogma.
 
For Ryan Grant N.2 would contradict N.1 since he assumes that these cases are known to us in the present times. So for him the baptism of desire is an exception. The baptism of desire was not an exception for Fr.Leonard Feeney and Catholic tradition. We cannot say that there were 12 baptism of desire cases this year or that there even was one over the last 100 years.
 
However if Ryan Grant admits that N.2 is not known to us he would have to say that Fr.Leonard Feeney was correct.Is  he willing to say this?
 
The apologists at EWTN, University of Steubenville where Ryan Grant has studied, and Phillip Gray whom he has quoted by him, are not willing to say this.
 
It's convenient to say that the Holy Office 1949 made a factual error  and that Pope Pius XII assumed that the baptism of desire is known to us in the present times and is an exception to the dogma.
The Letter of the Holy Office does not state this!
-Lionel Andrades

Faithful Answers has not touched any of the issues raised on extra ecclesiam nulla salus

 
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/08/faithful-answers-has-not-touched-any-of.html#links