| ||||
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.
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
Crux Catholic Media Inc.
3422 Xenia Street
Denver, CO 80238
US Mobile: +1.646.373.5238
Italy Mobile: +39.389.614.6131
From: Lionel Andrades
Sent: Friday, October 7, 2016 12:28 PM
To: John Allen
Subject: Re: Crux contact
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
Crux Catholic Media Inc.
3422 Xenia Street
Denver, CO 80238
US Mobile: +1.646.373.5238
Italy Mobile: +39.389.614.6131
No comments:
Post a Comment