Vatican Council II and the Catechism of Pope Pius X are Feeneyite.They support Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.They contradict Pope Pius XII,the Archbishop of Boston and the U.S Jesuits. Numbers 24Q and 27Q in the Catechism are Feeneyite.Confusion arises with 29Q which can be interpreted as being visible or invisible.
.jpg)
Vatican Council II(AG 7, LG 14) and the Catechism of Pope Pius X are Feeneyite for me. They say all need to be incorporated into the Catholic Church as members for salvation.
They do not say that there is known salvation outside the Church.They do not say that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are explicit.So invincible ignorance and the catechumen who desires the baptism of water refer to hypothetical cases and not known cases in 2016.The text does not say it directly however one choose wrongly to make the inference.One can infer that there are references to visible for us in 2016 being saved in invincible ignorance without the baptism of water.
So Vatican Council II and the Catechism of Pope Pius X support Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston and contradict Pope Pius XII and the Archbishop of Boston only when hypothetical cases are not assumed to be defacto known ; invisible cases are not assumed to be visible and what is accepted in principle ( dejure) is not assumed to be known defacto( in reality).
In the Catechism of Pope Pius X see numbers 24Q and 27Q which are pro-Fr.Leonard Feeney.1
Confusion today comes with 29Q.2
It can be interpreted as being visible or invisible.If 29Q refers to visible cases in 2016, people personally known who are saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, then 29Q contradicts 24Q and 27Q. As I mentioned in a previous blog post I call this the Cushingite interpretation of the Catechism of Pope Pius X.
For Cushingites there are known exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).This was the traditional intepretation.The dogma EENS is no more like it was for the 16th century missionaries. It is a rupture with St. Robert Bellamine, St. Francis of Assisi and St. Francis Xavier.It has the hermeneutic of rupture also with the three Church Councils which defined this dogma ex cathedra.
For me 29Q refers to an invisible case.So it is not an exception to 24Q and 27Q.So the Catechism of Pope Pius X is Feeneyite and not Cushingite for me.
All need to be living members of the Catholic Church to avoid the fires of Hell.No one can be saved outside the Church.
It is with this rational reasoning that I interpret Vatican Council II as not being a rupture with the Catechism of Pope Pius X. It does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known to the 16th century missionaries.
Vatican Council II amd the Catechism of Pope Pius X also do not contradict the Syllabus of Errors and the rest of Tradition.
For the traditionalists and the Vatican Curia, Vatican Council II is a rupture with Tradition.Since Lumen Gentium 16( invincible ignorance) refers to a visible case.The error emerges with the inference.
For me the Catholic Church teaches, before and after Vatican Council II, that all Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, Orthodox Christians, Protestants,atheists and other non Catholics,need to be incorporated into the Church as members for salvation.-Lionel Andrades
Confusion today comes with 29Q.2
It can be interpreted as being visible or invisible.If 29Q refers to visible cases in 2016, people personally known who are saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, then 29Q contradicts 24Q and 27Q. As I mentioned in a previous blog post I call this the Cushingite interpretation of the Catechism of Pope Pius X.
For Cushingites there are known exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).This was the traditional intepretation.The dogma EENS is no more like it was for the 16th century missionaries. It is a rupture with St. Robert Bellamine, St. Francis of Assisi and St. Francis Xavier.It has the hermeneutic of rupture also with the three Church Councils which defined this dogma ex cathedra.
For me 29Q refers to an invisible case.So it is not an exception to 24Q and 27Q.So the Catechism of Pope Pius X is Feeneyite and not Cushingite for me.
All need to be living members of the Catholic Church to avoid the fires of Hell.No one can be saved outside the Church.
It is with this rational reasoning that I interpret Vatican Council II as not being a rupture with the Catechism of Pope Pius X. It does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known to the 16th century missionaries.
Vatican Council II amd the Catechism of Pope Pius X also do not contradict the Syllabus of Errors and the rest of Tradition.
For the traditionalists and the Vatican Curia, Vatican Council II is a rupture with Tradition.Since Lumen Gentium 16( invincible ignorance) refers to a visible case.The error emerges with the inference.
For me the Catholic Church teaches, before and after Vatican Council II, that all Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, Orthodox Christians, Protestants,atheists and other non Catholics,need to be incorporated into the Church as members for salvation.-Lionel Andrades
1.
24 Q. To be saved, is it enough to be any sort of member of the Catholic Church?
A. No, to be saved it is not enough to be any sort of member of the Catholic Church; it is necessary to be a living member.
24 Q. To be saved, is it enough to be any sort of member of the Catholic Church?
A. No, to be saved it is not enough to be any sort of member of the Catholic Church; it is necessary to be a living member.
27 Q. Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church?
A. No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church
A. No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church
2.
29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation
_________________________________
October 9, 2016
29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation
_________________________________
October 9, 2016
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment