Thursday, July 9, 2015

The Holy Office 1949 made a factual mistake. It was an objective mistake and not just a mistake in theology. It was an error of observation. In a sense it was a philosophical error.

From Salvation and the ChurchFeeney, Fenton and the Making of
Lumen Gentium by Geertjan Zuijdwegt
http://www.academia.edu/8885903/Salvation_and_the_Church_Feeney_Fenton_and_the_Making_of_Lumen_Gentium
 
Abstract. —
This article traces the development of the Roman Catholic understand-ing of extra ecclesiam nulla salus between the Boston Heresy Case in the early 1940s and the Second Vatican Council. The Holy Office’s condemnation of the virtual limitation of salvation to Roman Catholics by Leonard Feeney and his followers is commonly construed as an important step in the development of an inclusivist under-standing of ecclesial belonging. The present article, by contrast, argues that a com-mon Bellarminian theological framework underlies the respective positions of Feeney, the Holy Office, and Joseph Clifford Fenton, the major American expounder of the Holy Office’s position. The real development of the Church’s official position was initiated and partly accomplished in the debates in the preparatory commissions for the Second Vatican Council, and resulted in Lumen Gentium’s non-Bellarminian understanding of ecclesial belonging.
 
 
 
This article traces the development of the Roman Catholic understand-ing of extra ecclesiam nulla salus between the Boston Heresy Case in the early 1940s and the Second Vatican Council.... - Geertjan Zuijdwegt
Lionel:
This article is based on Marchetti's false premise and inference. So it will be a break with the Bellarmine understanding of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
 
The Holy Office’s condemnation of the virtual limitation of salvation to Roman Catholics by Leonard Feeney and his followers is commonly construed as an important step in the development of an inclusivist under-standing of ecclesial belonging.
Lionel:
The Holy Office 1949 made a factual mistake. It was an objective mistake and not just a mistake in theology. It was an error of observation. In a sense it was a philosophical error. Upon this error it based the new theology.

The real development of the Church’s official position was initiated and partly accomplished in the debates in the preparatory commissions for the Second Vatican Council, and resulted in Lumen Gentium’s non-Bellarminian understanding of ecclesial belonging.
Lionel:
Without Marchetti's error, Lumen Gentium supports the Bellarmine understanding of ecclesial belonging.-Lionel Andrades

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

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/04/now-error-has-been-identified-over-time.html 

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 

No text in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore or the Council of Trent says there are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/04/no-text-in-quanto-conficiamur-moerore.html
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

No comments: