Patrick Archbold writes on extra ecclesiam nulla salus, while rejecting the dogma and so Dan Burke and Tom Weiner allow him to keep his job at the NCR/EWTN

If Patrick Archbold said that the Holy Office 1949 made an objective mistake could he still write for the EWTN's National Catholic Register where 'liberty of expression', so important for the Charlie Hebdo issue, is restricted.

If the Holy Office made a factual mistake, with no historical precedent; with no traditional source to support it's view, then Fr.Leonard Feeney would be correct.

Can Pat Archbold say that Fr.Leonard Feeney was correct and the Holy Office 1949 was wrong?

Would EWTN/NCR still employ him as a columnist?

They would not!

Tom Weiner and Dan Burke at the NCR would have to contend with the political Left and their threats.Remember how they removed Patrick Archbold's post calling for a reconciliation with the SSPX.

 

Archbold holds the liberal position on extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is acceptable policy at EWTN.

Whatever ones misconceptions on Fr.Leonard Feeney, the issue still is, how does Patrick Arhbold interpret Vatican Council II ? Lumen Gentium 16 (saved in invincible ignorance) is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus for him? Yes! It would have to be ( even if it wasn't) if he wants to be employed by EWTN/NCR. There are  exceptions to the dogma, for  the Archbishop,  where the NCR is situated.

The Register employees cannot say LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, etc refer to possibilities and not defacto exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This would be Feeneyism. They cannot say that Vatican Council II is Feeneyite ( even though it is).This would be anti-Semitic or whatever, for the powers that be.

Can you imagine Patrick Madrid and the other apologists on EWTN saying the Holy Office in 1949 made an objective mistake ? Unthinkable!

For me Feeneyism is still the official teaching of the Church on salvation, according to magisterial documents (AG 7,CCC 846,1257, Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441 etc) .There are no known exceptions to the dogma.

But this is not the view of the archbishop where EWTN is situated. He would have Patrick Archbold banned just as they removed  Fr.John Corapi.Even Fr.Corapi's former community SOLT are not going to say that the Holy Office made a mistake, if they want to stay in a  diocese.

So Patrick Archbold writes on extra ecclesiam nulla salus, while rejecting the dogma ( which is absolutist for him) and keeps his job at the NCR/EWTN.

-Lionel Andrades