Repost :Communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney in the USA when they interpret Vatican Council II with the irrational premise deny the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus

NOVEMBER 14, 2017

Communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney in the USA when they interpret Vatican Council II with the irrational premise deny the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus

The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary,St.Benedict Center, Still River which last month was given granted canonical status negate the dogma EENS( Feeneyite) with Vatican Council II interpreted with the premise.1

The communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney in the USA are denying the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) as it was interpreted over the centuries.When they interpret Vatican Council II, with the irrational premise then the Council is a rupture with the dogam extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known to Fr. Leonard Feeney.
The St.Benedict Center, Still River, Mass.was given canonical status last month since they have accepted Vatican Council II with hypothetical cases interpreted as not being hypothetical, but concrete and known exceptions to the dogmaextra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is expected of them by the diocese.

The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney,  are not affirming Vatican Council II with hypothetical cases just being hypothetical. It would mean that LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc do not refer to known people. So they would not be exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This too is an interpretation of Vatican Council II. It is a rational interpretation of the Council.

Like the bishops in Worcester, Manchester and Boston they are only viewing Vatican Council II with LG 16 etc being a rupture with the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation.So Vatican Council II becomes a break with Tradition.

This is a negation of Feeneyite EENS.They are using the false premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II to make it a rupture with EENS as it was interpreted by the missionaries in the 16th century.

They are interpreting Vatican Council II with the false premise i.e invisible people are visible.Then the bishops use the same irrationality to interpret the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. For them there are exceptions to the dogma. For them hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire etc are practical exceptions to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is the interpretation of outside the Church there is no salvation by other liberals and also the traditionalists.

Mons. Joseph Clifford Fenton, Fr.John Hardon and Fr. William Most also interpreted EENS with the baptism of desire etc being an exception.So they were not Feeneyites.They followed the error of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.They mistook what is invisible as being visible.

Now the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary are not affirming Feeneyite EENS when they accept Vatican Council II( with the premise),as if there is no choice.They are accepting Vatican Council II to compromise with their liberal bishops.They are not clarifying that they affirm Vatican Council II without the irrational premise, without hypothetical cases being interpreted as being non hypothetical.They need to clarify that the baptism of desire is invisible.If a person is saved with the baptism of desire with or without the baptism of water, it cannot be a visible exception to Feeneyite EENS.

They simply have to acknowedlge that there are no physically visible cases of the baptism of desire. -Lionel Andrades