In the previous blog post I mentioned that we can interpret Vatican Council II with either Feeneyism or Cushingism. 1 Here I would like to say that we can also interpret other Church documents with Feeneyism or Cushingism.
Also the baptism of desire (BOD), baptism of blood (BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I) can be interpreted with Feeneyism or Cushingism.I choose Feeneyism since it is traditional and rational.
For instance the baptism of desire refers to the case of a catechumen who desires to receive the baptism of water but dies before receiving it.
With Feeneyism the baptism of desire is a hypothetical case and so not relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Being invisible for us and known only to God, it cannot be an exception to exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.It does not exist in our reality.
With Cushingism the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma EENs. It is an example of salvation outside the Church.It is an exception to the strict interpretation of the dogma.In other words it is explicit for us for it to be an exception.
Explicit for us?!! These cases are in Heaven. So how can they be explicit for us? Who are these exceptions? What are their names ?
There are none.
It is based on this irrationality that the theology of Cushingism was created.It is an innovation, it is fantasy theology. It is heresy and it has been accepted by the contemporary Magisterium.
I choose Feeneyism.It was the theology of St. Francis Xavier whose feast day is today.
I can interpret ' seeds of the Word'(AG 11), imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3), ' a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men' (NA 2), 'elements of sanctification and truth'(LG 8) and being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) as referring to hypothetical, invisible for us cases.This is common sense. So they are not exceptions to the dogma EENS. This is the Feeneyite approach.Hypothetical cases cannot be examples of salvation outside the Church in the present times.There is no salvation outside the Church.
For a Cushingite these are all explicit cases, seen for example in 2015,in real life. So they are examples of salvation outside the Church, for the Cushingites.Ghosts are exceptions.
Similarly for me the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston suggests the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions or relevant to the Feeneyite version of the dogma.
This is irrational, non traditional and heretical for me, as a Feeneyite.
So for me the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992) CCC 157 ( the Necessity of Baptism ) and CCC 846 ( Outside the Church there is no salvation) do not contradict the traditional interpretation of the dogma. As a Feeneyite I cannot see any objective case of someone saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
Similarly for me BOD and I.I should not have been mentioned in Vatican Council II. In LG 14 and AG 7 these are superfluous passages, Cushing Additions, dead wood. They are not relevant or exceptions to the orthodox passages preceding them.
Also BOD and BOB should not have been placed in the baptism section of the Baltimore Catechism and the Catechism of Pope Pius XII. We can administer the baptism of water but we cannot give any one BOD and BOB. We can repeat and see the baptism of water but this is not the case with BOD and BOB. So in this sense they are not baptisms like the baptism of water.So placing BOD and BOB in the Baptism Section of those catechisms was confusing.
The Council of Trent only mentions 'the desiretherof'. It does not state that these cases are explicit or are exceptions to the dogma EENS.
The bottom line is that the Catholic Church in its magisterial documents ( Vatican Council II, CCC etc) has not changed its old ecclesiology for a Feeneyite.I can attend the Traditional Latin Mass or the Novus Ordo Mass and the ecclesiology is still exclusivist.
For me Pope Pius XII made a mistake. It was Archbishop Richard Cushing who was in heresy and it was Fr. Leonard Feeney who was de fide. It was the Jesuits and the Holy Office 1949 which had made an objective error with their Dead Man Walking theory, their visible-dead theology.
-Lionel AndradesSimilarly for me BOD and I.I should not have been mentioned in Vatican Council II. In LG 14 and AG 7 these are superfluous passages, Cushing Additions, dead wood. They are not relevant or exceptions to the orthodox passages preceding them.
Also BOD and BOB should not have been placed in the baptism section of the Baltimore Catechism and the Catechism of Pope Pius XII. We can administer the baptism of water but we cannot give any one BOD and BOB. We can repeat and see the baptism of water but this is not the case with BOD and BOB. So in this sense they are not baptisms like the baptism of water.So placing BOD and BOB in the Baptism Section of those catechisms was confusing.
The Council of Trent only mentions 'the desiretherof'. It does not state that these cases are explicit or are exceptions to the dogma EENS.
The bottom line is that the Catholic Church in its magisterial documents ( Vatican Council II, CCC etc) has not changed its old ecclesiology for a Feeneyite.I can attend the Traditional Latin Mass or the Novus Ordo Mass and the ecclesiology is still exclusivist.
For me Pope Pius XII made a mistake. It was Archbishop Richard Cushing who was in heresy and it was Fr. Leonard Feeney who was de fide. It was the Jesuits and the Holy Office 1949 which had made an objective error with their Dead Man Walking theory, their visible-dead theology.
1
It is the same Vatican Council II but interpreted with two different theologies
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/12/it-is-same-vatican-council-ii-but.html
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment