Friday, October 7, 2016

John Allen at Crux says he has no position on this issue: Vatican Council II can be interpreted with Feeneyism instead of the usual irrational Cushingism ?

John Allen



to me
Thanks for writing Crux. To the best of my
 knowledge, certainly not in the six months 
 I’ve been editor, we’ve never touched on 
the Feeney case, so I’m not sure which 
 “position” you’re referring to. In any event,
 Crux as such has no editorial line at  all 
– what we have are the positions of our
 individual authors.

JLA

* * *
John Allen
President
https://docs.google.com/a/cruxnow.com/uc?id=0B2xtMM-HkS47TVhPTklleENFblE&export=download
Crux Catholic Media Inc.
3422 Xenia Street
Denver, CO 80238
US Mobile: +1.646.373.5238
Italy Mobile: +39.389.614.6131
https://docs.google.com/a/cruxnow.com/uc?id=0B2xtMM-HkS47UFUxNTNQOVZVWkU&export=download https://docs.google.com/a/cruxnow.com/uc?id=0B2xtMM-HkS47NllJZjhwLTB2VjQ&export=download https://docs.google.com/a/cruxnow.com/uc?id=0B2xtMM-HkS47bzUyekcxaHpIZUk&export=download https://docs.google.com/a/cruxnow.com/uc?id=0B2xtMM-HkS47d2lkQ09WcmxqUnM&export=download





From: Lionel Andrades
Sent: Friday, October 7, 2016 12:28 PM
To: John Allen
Subject: Re: Crux contact


You have been interpreting Vatican
Council II with Cushingism i.e there 
are known exceptions (LG 16, LG 8
 etc) in Vatican Council II to the 
Feeneyite interpretation of the 
dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
(EENS). This has been your position 
even before you were at Crux.
Even now you are not saying that
Vatican Council II can be interpreted
with Feeneyism i.e there 
are no visible exceptions mentioned 
in the Council-text, to the Feeneyite 
interpretationof EENS.
Similarly you accept the dogma EENS 
as having exceptions in the baptism of
 desire etc as suggested in the Letter 
of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop
 of Boston.
This has been magisterial for you 
and you have always supported this.
So there is a choice. We can 
interpret Vatican Council II in which
 LG 16 ( invincible ignorance) refers
 to visible- in- the- flesh cases in 2016 
and so it is relevant to EENS or like me, 
we can interpret LG 16 as referring to an 
invisible case and so it is not relevant 
or an exception to the centuries old
interpretation of the dogma EENS.
Isn't Crux's position clear on this issue?
In Christ
Lionel



to me
Lionel:

Thanks for writing. Crux as such has 
no position on anything, other than 
a commitment to the best journalism
 of which we’re capable. 
Our writers have positions, I suppose,
 though I certainly don’t have a 
personally developed one on
 the issue you raise.


JLA


* * *
John Allen
President
https://docs.google.com/a/cruxnow.com/uc?id=0B2xtMM-HkS47TVhPTklleENFblE&export=download
Crux Catholic Media Inc.
3422 Xenia Street
Denver, CO 80238
US Mobile: +1.646.373.5238
Italy Mobile: +39.389.614.6131
https://docs.google.com/a/cruxnow.com/uc?id=0B2xtMM-HkS47UFUxNTNQOVZVWkU&export=download https://docs.google.com/a/cruxnow.com/uc?id=0B2xtMM-HkS47NllJZjhwLTB2VjQ&export=download https://docs.google.com/a/cruxnow.com/uc?id=0B2xtMM-HkS47bzUyekcxaHpIZUk&export=download https://docs.google.com/a/cruxnow.com/uc?id=0B2xtMM-HkS47d2lkQ09WcmxqUnM&export=download


No comments: