Now the error has been identified. Over time people will realize that what Feeney believed in was de fide and it was Cushing and Marchetti who were in heresy

waterinthewine:

You have not responded to any points in my comment so far. So just focus on this one if you are going to respond at all:

Lionel:

Please check again. I have responded to all the points you have mentioned.

______________________

wineinthewater:

"There are two problems with this statement. First, I have never claimed that there are exceptions to EENS,

Lionel:

You are not saying that everyone in 2015 April needs to formally enter the Church with 'faith and baptism'. Every one ?

___________________

nor does contemporary Church teaching claim that there is.

Lionel:

In general it encourages you to infer that there are exceptions.

___________________

Second, you have failed to show that your interpretation is the traditional interpretation."

Lionel:

Before 1949 there was only one traditional interpretation of the dogma.So when you avoid the Cushing error you are back to the old theology, the exclusivist ecclesiology.Its simple.

________________________

You keep going on about "exceptions," but contemporary Church teaching, just like historic Church teaching, does not speak of baptism of desire as an exception to EENS.

Lionel:

Contemporary Church implies it is.

The secular media criticizes Fr.Leonard Feeney and so do the theological papers of the International Theological Commission. Cardinal Kaspar and other cardinals also criticize Fr.Leonard Feeney.

Pope Benedict has said in public that Jews do not need to convert. Pope Francis has criticized triumphalism.No one has said Marchetti and Cushing were really in heresy.

__________________________

Every comment that you make talking about exceptions is completely and utterly irrelevant to contemporary Church teaching.

Lionel:

I affirm the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. You do not agree with me. So for you there must be exceptions. Since there are exceptions for you I have to address the issue.

Otherwise for me it is not an issue. I hold the traditional view which was clear for centuries in the Catholic Church.

_________________________

You have also failed to show, in even the slightest sense, that your interpretation of EENS - what you call the rigorist position, that the only way to be inside the Church and therefore find salvation is through water baptism - is the tradition al interpretation of the dogma.

Lionel:

I have quoted Ad Gentes 7. It says all need faith and baptism for salvation.What more could I say.

I have quoted the text of Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441. It is clear here too.

_________________________

The magisterial documents, even your very citations, refute that your interpretation is the traditional one.

Lionel:

Magisterial documents, would refute my interpretation ?.  They would refute it if I was using the irrational premise and inference. So I can understand why you think like this. You still approach this issue with the Marchetti-Cushing mind-set.

__________________

Over and over they admit the efficacy of baptism of desire for salvation, not as an exception to EENS, but as a way to be inside the Church.

Lionel:
You are inside the Church with the baptism of water and Catholic Faith. This was traditional.It is the ordinary way. There cannot be an exceptional way known to us.

____________________

Over and over the magisterium of the Church rejects your position.

Lionel:

The contemporary magisterium rejects the traditional magisterium on this issue since they use Cushingism. So they would also contradict my position since I use Feeneyism as a theology, to interpret pre-Vatican Council II  and post Vatican Council II documents.

We have popes and cardinals after 1949 supporting, often with silence, what is irrational and heretical.

_____________________

You can call your interpretation "centuries old" or "traditional" but that does not make it so.

Lionel:

The text is still the same.The statements of the popes and saints are still there to know what was the centuries old interpretation of the dogma.

______________________

Because the documents of the Church's magisterium refute your central premise, all the rest of your argumentation falls.

Lionel:

The documents of the Church's magisterium interpreted with Cushingism (only) would refute my traditional view.

The same documents interpreted without Cushingism support me and contradict your view.

__________________________

If you cannot prove that your interpretation is the traditional one - and you can't because I've laid out above how every single citation you've given has not only failed to support your assertion but has in fact refuted it - then there is nothing left to argue.

Lionel:

You cannot cite hypothetical cases, assume they are objectively known on April 13,2015 and then claim that traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus is refuted.

Even a non Catholic would know you are being irrational. You  contradict what is common knowledge i.e the dead now saved in Heaven cannot be personally known or seen on earth.

______________________

If you are just going to keep harping on the house of sticks you have built on that foundation of sand, the I simply have nothing else to say and our discourse will have to be at an end.

You have to ask yourself in whom you will trust. As a Jesuit, Feeney made a solemn vow to God to obey the Pope.

Lionel:

The popes and cardinals made a profession of faith.Then they allowed a new doctrine to enter the Church, based on an irrational premise. This was also first class heresy. It changed the meaning of the Nicene Creed, 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins', now meant,' I believe in three or more baptisms without the baptism of water for the forgiveness of sins.'

They also had to put away the Athanasius Creed.Since then the error would be too obvious.The Creed which said outside the Church there is no salvation had become obsolete and wrong?! The dogma developed?

__________________

When he refused to go to Rome to account for his theology, he broke that vow.

Lionel:

There was no formal request.There were technical issues.Canon Law was not followed.He read about the charge in the newspapers.The Archbishop of Boston was in clear heresy...

___________________

Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would protect the Church from error.

Lionel:

Yes.

Now the error has been identified. Over time people will realize that what Feeney taught and believed in was de fide and it was Cushing and Marchetti who were in heresy.

We must give credit to the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney, the St. Benedict Centers in the USA, who preserved the truth for us.They did not accept the error like other traditionalists.

________________________________

So what are you going to trust? The words of Jesus, God made man come to save us from sin, or the words of Feeney, a man who broke his vow to God. Jesus? Or the vow breaker? You choose.

Lionel:

I could put that same question to you. Who are you going to choose ? The words of Jesus ( John 3:5, Mk.16:16) or the words of Cushing, a man who rejected a dogma defined by three Church Councils and who changed the meaning of the Nicene Creed.

-Lionel Andrades
http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2015/03/dont-blame-vatican-ii.html#comment-1961205650


The error was not corrected. Cushing brought it into Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) with no opposition. Even the traditionalists agreed with him!
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/04/the-error-was-not-corrected-cushing.html