EWTN, Jeff Mirus, Fr.William Most's Internet report is an obstacle for the SSPX canonical recognition

The report on the Internet Tragic Errors of Fr. Leonard Feeney is an obstacle to the Society of St. Pius X(SSPX) being able to understand how Vatican Council II can be in harmony with Tradition and then their asking for canonical status.

This report assumes being saved in invincile ignorance(I.I), the baptism of desire(BOD) and baptism of blood(BOB) are known cases of people saved outside the Church without the baptism of water.It then assumes that there are known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).This,many do not know has a link to the interpretation of Vatican Council II.

For Fr. William Most, EWTN and Jeff Mirus(Catholic Culture) there are known exceptions to Feeneyite EENS and this is expressed on this  flagship report for the Left.The Magisterium in 1949 was correct and the exceptions include I.I, BOD and BOB besides those mentioned in Vatican Council II (LG 16,UR 3 etc).This is the liberal narrative accepted by also the traditionalists.

Since in principle hypothetical cases of BOD, BOB and I.I are visible exceptions to the dogma EENS for Fr.Most.Vatican Council II (LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc) is a rupture with Feeneyite EENS, the Syllabus of Errors and the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.So every one does not need to enter the Church for salvation,as it was taught in the past.The Church is no more like the Ark of Noah that saves in the Flood.So of course Vatican Council II becomes a  rupture with Tradition.The SSPX rejects it.

This was the 'tragic error' of Fr. Leonard Feeney according to EWTN, that he refused to see and accept that invisible for us I.I, BOD and BOB were really visible exceptions to EENS.This has been accepted in all ecclesiology classes through out the world and all professors and priests teach this.Even Fr.Jean Marie Gleize teaches this in Ecclesiology semesters at Econe.

So the SSPX like the present liberal magisterium and EWTN has to accept Vatican Council II in which LG 16 is a known exception to Tradition, in particular the dogma EENS as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century.

Things have changed now.

 Since this propaganda piece by Mirus, EWTN and the Jewish Left was placed on the Internet,Catholic professors of philosophy and theology state offically and in public that invisible for us BOD, BOB and I.I are not visible for us in 2017. So they never were and nor are exceptions to the dogma EENS as it was known over the centuries.

So references to I.I,BOD and BOB in Mystici Corporis, Catechism of Trent, Catechism of Pius X etc refer to unknown people and so are not  exceptions to EENS. Fr.William Most, EWTN and Mirus made a mistake.They wrongly indicate in this report that Broad Texts of the Magisterium  and the Broad texts of the Fathers mention exceptions to to EENS with visible for  us cases of BOD, BOB and I.I . They would have to be visibile of course, for them to be exceptions. This is the common inference.

The late Fr.William Most,a good apologist otherwise,made an objective mistake. Non existing people in our reality cannot be exceptions to Feeneyite EENS. The magisterium made a mistake in 1949 and the error continues.It has a bearing on the SSPX receiving canonical status.

So now if the SSPX understands(if, only if...!!)this they simply have to announce that all hypothetical cases mentioned in Vatican Council II are simply hypothetical.So Vatican Council II is not a rupture with EENS as mentioned in the Restrictive Texts of the Fathers and Restrictive texts of the Magisterium in the EWTN report.Vatican Council II is not a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors and the past ecclesiology of the Catholic Church as during the time of St.Maximillian Kolbe in the 1930's.This is another Vatican Council II as compared to the one known by the SSPX.

So the SSPX can affirm Vatican Council II ( with hypothetical cases not  objective) and also  endorse the  dogma EENS as it was known to the missionaries of the 16th century and the Church Fathers and Medieval Fathers.

Then they can ask the Vatican, the two popes and all the cardinals to also affirm Vatican Council II without the confusion over invisible people being visible examples of salvation outside the Church and so allegedly contradicting the centuries-old interpretation of EENS.

They can also correct the same error in the Wikipedia reports on Fr. Leonard Feeney, outside the Church there is no salvation, extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Feeneyism, Dominus Iesus, Subsistit it,Ecclesiology, Soteriology, Baptism of Desire, Invincible Ignorance etc.

Catholics in general are confused with this propaganda piece on the Internet.Even Fr.John Hunwicke in 2009 assumes that invisible ignorance is an exception to the dogma EENS and criticizes Fr. Leonard Feeney. So it is no surprise that for him Vatican Council II is a rupture with Tradition.1 The fault lies with him and not Vatican Council II.-Lionel Andrades

1

More traditionalist than Tradition?

http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.it/2009/12/more-traditionalist-than-tradition.htmlùù

TRAGIC ERRORS OF LEONARD FEENEY  

  by Fr. William Most

http://www.ewtn.com/library/scriptur/feeney.txt

____________________________________________________

AUGUST 11, 2017

Magisterium made a mistake in excommunicating Fr. Leonard Feeney since BOD,BOB and I.I refer to invisible people : Vatican Council II interpretation changes

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/08/magisterium-made-mistake-in.html

JULY 1, 2016

Tragic Errors of Fr.Leonard Feeney by Fr.William Most is based on assuming hypothetical cases are explicit exceptions to the dogma EENS. This is an objective mistake

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/07/tragic-errors-of-frleonard-feeney-by_1.html

DECEMBER 19, 2015

Tragic Errors of Fr.Leonard Feeney' by Fr. William Most is based on the error of Cushingismhttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/12/tragic-errors-of-frleonard-feeney-by-fr.html