Rational Interpretation of Vatican Council II : hope for the Franciscans of the Immaculate

Here are four approaches to the interpretation of Vatican Council II and other magisterial texts.

1.Two Questions.

2.Left Hand Side or Right Hand Side Column ( or the blue column and the red column)

3.Feeneyism or Cushingism.

4.With the use of a false premise or without it.

This is important for the Franciscans of

the Immaculate. Since there can be only one rational interpretation of Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.This interpretation also agrees with Tradition.
So they are in a position to affirm Tradition and also Vatican Council II. They can have their cake and eat it too.

It is Pope Francis and the Vatican Curia who cannot cite Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition, unless, they are using an irrational interpretation which results in a non traditional conclusion.It's a mistake.

So the FFI and the SSPX are in a position to tell the Vatican that they accept Vatican Council II, knowing :-

1.The dead are not visible to us in 2014 (Two Questions).

2.They use the left hand column in the interpretation.

3. They use Feeneyism in the interpretation of Vatican Council II, the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and other magisterial documents.

4.They avoid the False Premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council.

 

 

1.
 How would you respond to these TWO QUESTIONS ?

1) Do we personally know the dead now saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc,can we see them, are they physically visible to us in 2014 ?

2) Since we do not know any of these cases, in real life, they are not visible for us, there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, or Ad Gentes 7 which states 'all' need 'faith and baptism' for salvation ?
________________________________________________

 

2.
Would you interpret Vatican Council II with the right hand side or left hand side column?

 

LEFT HAND SIDE COLUMN - RIGHT HAND SIDE COLUMNAll salvation referred to in Vatican Council II i.e saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16), imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3),seeds of the Word (AG 11), good and holy things in other religions (NA 2) etc are either:

implicit                       or     explicit for us.

hypothetical              or      known in reality.

invisible                     or      visible in the flesh.

dejure ( in principle) or       defacto ( in fact ).

subjective                  or       objective

So one can choose from the left hand side or the right hand side column.

 

If the right hand side column is chosen then Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and Tradition in general on other religions and Christian communities and churches. There are known exceptions in 2014 to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Cathlic Church. The dead- saved are visible.

If the left hand side column is chosen then Vatican Council II does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus, nor Tradition on other religions and Christian communities and churches.

Most people interpret Vatican Council II with the right hand side values.

So the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance was never ever an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney, unless one is using the right hand side column.There were and are no known exceptions


._____________________________________

 

3.

Would you interpret Vatican Council II according to Feenyism or Cushingism. Cushingism is irrational.

1.

 VATICAN COUNCIL II

Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6), yet a necessity lies upon the Church (1 Cor. 9:16), and at the same time a sacred duty, to preach the Gospel...-Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II.

FEENEYISM (rational): The orange text does not contradict the text in yellow since the cases referred to are defacto.They are not known to us, personally.We do not know and cannot know these cases. So they are not exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

CUSHINGISM( irrational): The orange text contradicts the text in yellow .It is assumed that thse cases are known to us in the present times. We can physically see the dead who are known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.

 

2.

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.-Catechism of the Catholic Church 846

FEENEYISM (rational): The orange text does not contradict the text in yellow since the cases referred to are defacto.They are not known in reality. They not known to us, personally .We do not know and cannot know these cases. So they are not exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

CUSHINGISM( irrational): The orange text contradicts the text in yellow .It is assumed that thse cases are known to us in the present times. It is presumed that we can see the dead who are known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.This is  irrational.
 -Lionel Andrades

_____________________________________

4.

 

You can interpret Vatican Council II with a false premise ( we can physically see the dead).Or it can be interpreted without the false premise. The false premise makes the conclusion irrational.

False Premise : We can physically see , know a Protestant in 2014 saved as such.

Conclusion:

Cases of imperfect communion with the Church are visible to us so they are known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
 

Without the False Premise: UR 3 refers to a possibility known only to God.It is not visible us.



 Since it is unknown to us it cannot be an exception to the dogma on exclusive salvation.

 

False Premise: We can physically see, know a Jew or Hindu who is 'good and holy' and is saved in 2014.

Conclusion:

Cases of good and holy non Catholics who are saved or going to be saved, are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
 

Without the False Premise: NA 2 is a possibility , a hypothetical case. It is irrelevant to the dogma on salvation.It is not visble to us.

 

False Premise: Those saved with the ' seeds of the Word' (AG 11 etc) are personally known to us. We can meet them.

Conclusion: Since these cases are personally known to us , they are visible exceptions to the dogma outside the church there is no salvation.

Without the False Premise: There are no known exceptions to the traditional teaching on other religions.NA 2 is not one of them.There are no cases physically visible to us in 2014.

___________________________________________

 

-Lionel Andrades