Saturday, October 29, 2016

Feeneyism is the missing link

Image result for Photo of Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston

If we go back to the interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney then pastorally Vatican Council II will have the hermeneutic of continuity.

If all of them would accept the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was interpreted by Fr. Leonard Feeney then Vatican Council II would pastorally be in harmony with Tradition.Yes we've finally found the missing link.What causes the hermeneutic of rupture ? When has Vatican Council II a hermeneutic of continuity?
The whole Church rejects Feeneyism and so Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition.
Feeneyism for me is not accepting any exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) since there are no physically known exceptions in the present times.There cannot be any objective exception for us human beings, past or present.
Hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance cannot be exceptions to EENS in Feeneyism.
So a Feeneyite for me would read the text of Vatican Council II and not confuse LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 as being objectively visible in 2016. So they would not be relevant, or an exception, to the dogma EENS as interpreted by Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston or the 16th century missionaries.
Vatican Council II has a continuity with the dogma EENS, the Syllabus of Errors, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the rest of Tradition.
Feeneyism would accept the first part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which supports Fr. Leonard Feeney and reject the second part which contradicts the first part.
Feeneyism is the missing link.
Feeneyite your interpretation of Vatican Council II and get back to the old ecclesiology.The Council is pro-Tradition. The teachings of the Catholic Church on salavtion are the same before and after Vatican Council II.
There can only be an ecumenism of return in Vatican Council II. Since UR 3 etc are hypothetical and so do not contradict the traditional interpretation of EENS.
All non Catholics with no exception need to be incorporated into the Church as members for salvation, to avoid Hell,since there are no known exceptions outside the Church. There cannot be an Anonymous Christian since there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS ; there are no known cases of someone being saved outside the visible limits of the Catholic Church to contradict the traditional exclusivist ecclesiology.
So if we attend the Novus Ordo Mass or the Traditional Latin Mass the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church is still the same.The new theology has been eliminated since it was based on there being known salvation outside the Church.Ratzinger-Rahner move over.
With Feeneyism we have a rational way to interpret Vatican Council II.No more gymnastics. No more assuming there are visible people on earth who have died with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water and they are relevant to the dogma on salvation.There are none.
This puts the liberals on the defensive. Once Catholics know that Vatican Council II can be interpreted with Feeneyism there is now an alternative for them.One which they may not like.Also now the liberals have no citations from Vatican Council II to support their 'progressivist' interpretation.We now know that LG 16 is always, always hypothetical.It is always only a possibility and never a known reality.So the liberals cannot any more cite LG 16 as an exception to Feeneyite EENS. Wikipedia would have to correct the on line error.
This means the SSPX and the traditionalists are in a smiling position.Canonically Vatican Council II should no more be a hurdle.The whole game plan has changed. The doctrinal scenario has changed.Vatican Council II is traditional and right up their tree.It is Ecclesia Dei and the CDF who need to affirm Vatican Council II in harmony with Tradition,and they'll have to do it  with Feeneyism.
Times have changed.
-Lionel Andrades



If all of them would accept the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was interpreted by Fr. Leonard Feeney then Vatican Council II would pastorally be in harmony with Tradition


Yes there is one true Roman Catholic Church and the Catholics are those who believe in Tradition.But there are traditionalists who reject Vatican Council II and liberals who accept Vatican Council II. I am not a traditionalist who rejects Vatican Council II and neither am I a liberal who accepts Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition. I accept Vatican Council II in harmony with Tradition.In which category are you in?

Is this not complicated for you?
Not for me.
Most Catholics including the present magisterium have used an irrational premise to interpret Vatican Council II. The traditionalists use this premise and do not like the non traditional conclusion.So they reject Vatican Council II. While the liberals use the same false premise and reach a non traditional conclusion and like it. So they accept Vatican Council II with this innovation.
If all of them would accept the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was interpreted by Fr. Leonard Feeney then Vatican Council II would pastorally be in harmony with Tradition.-Lionel Andrades

OCTOBER 29, 2016

If we go back to the interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney then pastorally Vatican Council II will have the hermeneutic of continuity

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/10/if-we-go-back-to-interpretation-of.html



https://gloria.tv/video/aKZLQrSpm8Gb3mW47P6Cs1nT7/postings/

Be thou my vision - (with lyrics)

https://youtu.be/6CMclLT_Hjg

If we go back to the interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney then pastorally Vatican Council II will have the hermeneutic of continuity


Comment on Gloria TV
It is true that there have been unholy fruits from Vatican Council II. However you mean Vatican Council II interpreted with Cushingism as a theology. You mean a Vatican Council II interpreted with a false prremise of being able to see or know people in the present times saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. So the conclusion is non traditional.
This false interpretation of Vatican Council II cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit.
However inspite of this general error Vatica Council II can be interpreted without the false premise of the baptism of desire etc being visible in 2016.
If we go back to the interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney then pastorally,as one clear thinking commentators at Gloria TV said, Vatican Council II will have the hermeneutic of continuity.It is this Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) which in future will bring forth good fruit.
-Lionel Andrades

How to stay away from sin | Fr.Don Reto Nay

https://youtu.be/rtrS52jbYlk

Battle of Milvian Bridge

Battle of Milvian Bridge

Edit: in 312 on October 28th, the Emperor Constantine defeated the forces of Maxentius at the Battle of Milivian Bridge.  His victory was not only decisive in a political sense, but in a religious dimension as well since Constantine attributed his victory the divine intervention, more specifically, the intervention of Christ.  This victory and Constantine's own conversion and personal intervention in later passing the Edict of Toleration, led to the triumph of Christianity over pagan Rome.
http://eponymousflower.blogspot.it/

Do you see the mistake made by Archbishop Augustine di Noia in the text ?

I mentioned in a previous comment that Vatican Council II is not a break with Tradition in itself.
It is only a break with Tradition if:-
1.It is assumed that hypothetical cases are not hypothetical but objectively visible in 2016.
2.It is assumed that Fr.Leonard Feeney was in heresy and not Cardinal Cushng the Archbishop of Boston.
3.It is assumed that Cushingism is the acceptable new theology which replaces Feeneyism.
Do you see the mistake made by Archbishop Augustine di Noia in the text quoted below?

ARCHBISHOP AUGUSTINE DO NOIA : ASSUMES WHAT IS KNOWN ONLY TO GOD CAN BE KNOWN AND JUDGED BY US HUMAN BEINGS.

I don’t know if you can blame this on the Council so much as the emergence of a theological trend that emphasized the possibility of salvation of non-Christians. But the Church has always affirmed this, and it has never denied it. …The Council did say there are elements of grace in other religions, and I don’t think that should be retracted. I’ve seen them, I know them — I’ve met Lutherans and Anglicans who are saints.' - Archbishop Augustine di Noia ( 07/01/2012 ), Archbishop Di Noia, Ecclesia Dei and the Society of St. Pius X, National Catholic Register.

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-dinoia-ecclesia-dei-and-the-society-of-st.-pius-x/#ixzz3Q1Vx3byR

 

 ANALYSE HIS NON ORTHODOX STATEMENT 

But the Church has always affirmed this, and it has never denied it.

Lionel:

Here he iinfers  that there is known salvation outside the Church. He infers that Vatican Council II says there is known salvation outside the Church.He means the baptism of desire refers to the possibility of salvation outside the Church and so also being saved in invincible ignorance. However this possibility is a personally known case for him. Someone objectively visible.Otherwise why would he mention it with reference to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which says all need to be incorporated into the Catholic Church as members?

Known salvation is the key. If there is known salvation outside the Church then the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known to the 16th century missionaries has been changed.There is an exception even when the dogma suggests there is no exception(Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441). 

The Council did say there are elements of grace in other religions, and I don’t think that should be retracted.

Lionel:

He infers here that Lumen Gentium 8, 'elements of sanctification and grace' , refer to known cases, objectively visible cases and so it is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Can we know of someone saved with 'elements of sanctification and truth' in 2016 or over the last 20 years, or in the past?

 I’ve seen them, I know them — I’ve met Lutherans and Anglicans who are saints.'

Lionel:

Here he actually says that he can judge them! He can know of people who will go to Heaven who are not members of the Catholic Church.He suggests that he knows of Anglicans and Lutherans who will not die with mortal sin on their soul in the future. So not only can Jesus judge them but he too can judge individual cases!

1.It is assumed that hypothetical cases are not hypothetical but objectively visible in 2016.For Archbishop Di Noia LG 8 refers to a visible case.It is not just a hypothethetical case.
2.It is assumed that Fr.Leonard Feeney was in heresy and not Cardinal Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston.
Archbishop Di Noia assumes Fr.Leonard Feeney was in heresy for affirming EENS in which hypothetical cases were NOT exceptions to the dogma.
3.It is assumed that Cushingism is the acceptable new theology which replaces Feeneyism.
The members of the CDF/Ecclesia Dei are Cushingites. They assumes imaginary cases are not imaginary in the present times. They infer hypothetical cases are not hypothetical.So with this irrational premise they then conclude that Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition.
They know there is a choice.They know that if they accept EENS according to Fr. Leonard Feeney then pastorially Vatican Council Ii would be reconciled with EENS and Tradition.
Do you see the mistake made by Archbishop Augustine di Noia in the text quoted above?
-Lionel Andrades