Wednesday, January 7, 2015

If you consider the Holy Office or Fr.Leonard Feeney in heresy determines how you interpret Vatican Council II

I think it was the Holy Office 1949 and the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing who were in heresy for denying the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, with their alleged 'exceptions', whom they could not name and which no Church document prior to 1949 mentioned.
The dogma said all need to be formal members of the Catholic Church with the baptism of water and they were saying, not all.
1.Who were the exceptions visible and known to them? Who were these objective exceptions in Boston and elsewhere? No one.
2.Where in Mystici Corporis or the Council of Trent was it said that the baptism of desire referred to personally known cases and so these hypothetical persons were exceptions to the dogma? No Church document infers this. This was the error of the magisterium and ecclesiastical hierarchy in Boston. It was a new doctrine in the Church. It was heresy.
It was irrational theology based on assuming that visible cases in Heaven  ( baptism of desire etc) were exceptions to the dogma.This was the irrational premise which was the foundation of their theology. They concluded that these 'visible cases' were 'explicit' exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors etc. So with an irrational proposition ( visible baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance) they concluded that Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center were wrong.

The Archbishop also misused his power and excommunicated Fr.Leonard Feeney. The  excommunication was not lifted even during Vatican Council II.This gave them time to  enforce heresy, the new doctrine,in the Council.The popes were not supporting Fr.Leonard Feeney in public.No one was going to say that all the non Catholics in Boston need to convert for salvation and there were no exceptions.
Ask yourself where are the exceptions in 2015? Can you see anyone who does not need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water and who will be saved?
How can we know that someone is saved outside the Church (without faith and baptism)?
Why did Fr.Leonard Feeney have to say in 1949 that there was salvation outside the Church? They did not know of any one saved outside the Church.
How can a defined dogma be replaced by a letter from a cardinal  and that too with an objective mistake?
The Letter was wrong in assuming that the baptism of desire was relevant or an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It had nothing to do with the dogma.
How could the magisterium in 1949 contradict the magisterium of the previous centuries?
Why did the Catholic professors at Boston College, members of the St.Benedict Center, lose their teaching job ? It was because they refused to proclaim this irrationality!
How we see Vatican Council II, how we interpret it, depends upon  how we see the Fr.Leonard Feeney case.It is like putting on two different coloured glasses.It changes how we look at the world.If Fr.Leonard Feeney is in heresy then Vatican Council II is a break with the past.If the Holy Office and the Archbishop of Boston were in heresy, then Vatican Council II is in agreement with Tradition.
We make our choice between two spectacles with different colours, at the point of the Fr.Leonard Feeney Case.To whom does the Boston Heresy refer to ?
So if Mons. Bruno Gherardini says Vatican Council II is wrong for 'these and those' logical reasons, I would say he is responding to the premise he has chosen.He assumes Fr.Leonard Feeney was in error.This is the premise chosen by the SSPX,many traditionalists and the Vatican Curia.
If someone(Lionel for example) says Vatican Council II is traditional for 'these or that' logical reason, I would say this is correct based on the choice of the two premises. For me the  Letter of the Holy Office made an objective mistake.
We choose to accept or reject the  premise made by the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. If you reject the irrational inference in the Letter, the Council becomes traditional and in agreement with Fr.Leonard Feeney's rigorist interpretation.(It is choosing between the red and blue columns, the left and right hand side column).
If Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior General of the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX)  wants Vatican Council II to be interpreted in agreement with the Syllabus of Errors he simply has to say that the Holy Office 1949 during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII  was in heresy. Vatican Council II changes.
If the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Fr.Leonard Feeney's community in the USA,want to interpret Vatican Council II in agreement with the rigorist interpretation  of the dogma, they simply have to say that the magisterium in 1949 made an objective, factual error. Vatican Council II changes. They have put on different glasses.
The theologians John Lamont, Thomas Pink 1 and others are not using this paradigm when discussing Vatican Council II, since like the original professors at Boston College, they could lose their teaching authority, now given to them by bishops,for whom Fr.Leonard Feeney is in heresy.Even the Franciscans of the Immaculate have to accept Vatican Council II using the red hand side column. They make the Gherardini choice.2
-Lionel Andrades



Lay Catholics,including bloggers still do not realize that Vatican Council II can be interpreted with the blue or red column

No comments: