Catholics can start saying that the Church teaches Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston was correct and the Holy Office (CDF) in 1949 was wrong. The Church still teaches the traditional strict interpretation of the dogma EENS since BOD, BOB and I.I refer to invisible people in 2018. By the Church they are referring to the magisterial documents interpreted without the false premise.

See the timing at 28:53 on this video. Cardinal Ladaria in answer to a question cites LG 8 as an exception to EENS.This is an objective error and it comes from the mistake the Church made in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case.

At 17:11 he presents Christology without the traditional ecclesiocentrism ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.

_____________________________________________________

The doctrinal situation is a real mess with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF) promoting an Arian-like heresy in the Church which is approved by the Left which represents Satan.

If you can understand the mechanics of what was happening at the Placuet Deo Press Conference ( March 1, 2018) you can see how the CDF  for some reason, is supporting Gnosticism throughout the Church. They are doing this in a defacto and official way.

The secular media says that the Church no more supports the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and the CDF approves of this error officially.In other words invisible and unknown cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood (BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) are visible exceptions to all needing to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation.This is the false reasoning used by the ecclesiastics to support the error in the secular media and the Internet.

But for me the Church, according to BOD, BOB and I.I and the dogma EENS says outside the Church there is no known salvation. So Fr. Leonard Feeney was correct according to magisterial documents interpreted without the irrational premise of the ecclesiastics. Fr.Leonard Feeney is still magisterial for me.

So for me the Church, according to the text of Vatican Council II supports the traditional 'strict' interpretation of the dogma EENS when LG 8 etc are interpreted as referring to hypothetical cases only in the present times.Vatican Council II does not contradict Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston. The Council support Feeneyite EENS, when the false premise is avoided in the interpretation.So Vatican Council II and EENS, without the premise, is magisterial for me.It is what 'the Church' teaches for me.

But for the CDF, at the Placuet Deo Press Conference , the Church was saying LG 8 refers to physically visible non Catholics saved outside the Church.This is the inference when LG 8 is put forward as an exception to the past ecclesiology of the Church which was exclusive.

So the inference of the CDF is false.How can there be physically visible non Catholics saved outside the Church who could be exceptions to Feeneyite EENS? BOD,BOB and I.I are always invisible, for us, always.

Yet this is how the traditionalists and the whole Church interpret doctrine on salvation guided by the CDF.

A few days back the website Rorate Caili was criticizing Vatican Council II and the popes John XXII, Paul VI and John Paul II.But Rorate could also criticize Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Cardinals Ottaviano and Siri and Pope Pius XII.They have all been assuming hypothetical cases are objective exceptions to the dogma EENS in the present times.It was a sincere mistake.Yet they were all interpreting Vatican Council II as a rupture with Tradition and discerning liberals must have been laughing up their sleeve.

Now a correction can be made.

Catholics can start saying that the Church teaches Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston was correct and the Holy Office (CDF) in 1949 was wrong.

They can start saying that the Church still teaches the traditional strict interpretation of the dogma EENS since BOD, BOB and I.I refer to invisible people in 2018. There no examples of salvation outside the Church which are known to us or can be known to us.

They can start saying that Vatican Council II is in harmony with EENS as it was interpreted by the missionaries and Magisterium in the 16th century. 

So there is no change in the ecclesiology of the Church, before and after Vatican Council II, according to 'the Church'.

Of course by the Church they are referring to the magisterial documents interpreted without the false premise. By ' the Church' they are not referring to the CDF and the two popes in this case.-Lionel Andrades


_____________________
_____________________

AUGUST 18, 2018

Placuit Deo promotes an ecumenical Jesus and not Jesus according to the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church,which did not separate Jesus from faith and baptism in the Church for salvation : Sandro Magister and Edward Pentin did not know

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/08/placuit-deo-promotes-ecumenical-jesus.html

AUGUST 17, 2018

Obligated to the Masons and the Left Pope Benedict, Cardinal Ladaria and Bishop Morani did not want to affirm Vatican Council II without the false premise. They did not truthfully interpret the Council without hypothetical cases being assumed to be objective people in the present times

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/08/obligated-to-masons-and-left-pope.html

AUGUST 15, 2018

The CDF needs to apologize for the error in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case.It has a direct bearing on how we interpret Vatican Council II. The Council becomes a rupture or continuity with the past

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-cdf-needs-to-apologize-for-error-in.html




_______________________________
________________________________