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.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF) needs to review the Fr. Leonard Feeney case since an objective error  was made by the Holy Office(CDF) 1949.Invisible baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) were assumed to be visible exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).All references to BOD, BOB and I.I in the past ,were  interpreted in 1949 as referring to objective people saved outside the Chrch, people in the flesh who were exceptions to traditional EENS.

When the saints mentioned BOD, BOB and I.I they were referring to hypothetical cases.But the liberal theologians in 1949  re-interpreted  BOD, BOB and I.I.So the saints and popes were projected as a rupture  with Feeneyite EENS.

Similarly they interpreted references to BOD, BOB and I.I in the Catechisms of Pius X, Trent etc as a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors on an ecumenism or return and no salvation outside the Church.Again it was physically visible cases of BOD, BOB and I.I.

The mistake of the Letter was repeated by the Council Fathers in 1965.Then the liberal theologians along with the CDF interpreted Vatican Council II as a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors and EENS.They used the false premise, even though they had a rational choice.
The CDF did not correct the mistake after Vatican Council II  but actually promoted it.

How could invisible cases of BOD, BOB and I.I be visible exceptions to traditional EENS ? Who can see people saved without the baptism of water in Heaven? What are the names of the practical exceptions to EENS in 2018?

So now even the understanding of the Nicence Creed is changed to 'I believe not in one known baptism for the forgiveness of sins but three known baptisms and they exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.They are also known examples of salvation outside the Church'.

The CDF accepted this false reasoning in two papers of the International Theological Commission.The new theology is there in  Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus and this year, at the Placuet Deo Press Conference.On  March 1 Cardinal Luiz Ladaria, Prefect of the CDF told a journalist from the Associated Press that Lumen Gentium 8 was an exception to the traditional exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.




He meant there were known non Catholics saved outside the Church with elements of sanctification and truth(LG 8) or there were known Catholics saved outside the Church where the true Church of Christ allegedly subsists(LG 8).

These cases would have to be known people for there to be a practical exception to the old ecclesiology.Invisible people cannot be exceptions to EENS and the past ecclesiology.Simiarly the ecumenism of return of the Syllabus of Errors could only be rejected if there were known Christians saved in their religions outside the Church.

Pope Benedict repeated the error in March 2016 when he said that EENS today was no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century since there was a development with Vatican Council II. He meant Vatican Council II interpreted with the false premise ( LG 16, LG 14 etc refer to known non Catholics saved outside the Church).
He had a choice. He could have said that EENS today was not a rupture with EENS as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century since LG 8, LG 14,LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc refer to invisible people in the present times. They are only hypothetical cases. Theoretical cases are not practical exceptions to EENS as it was known to the missionaries and Magisterium in the 16th century.
He could have simply corrected the error but it seems as if he wanted to promote the hermeneutic of rupture.

The CDF needs to clarify that hypothetical cases of the BOD,BOB and I.I cannot be practical exceptions to Feeneyite EENS. Possibilities of salvation are hypothetical and theoretical cases always for us human beings. They cannot be objective exceptions to EENS.No one could have seen any one saved in Heaven without faith and the baptism of water.So the Holy Office 1949 made a mistake in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case.

Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member -Letter of the Holy Office 1949

Fr.Feeney held the traditional interpretation of EENS.There was no BOD, BOB and I.I which was relevant to EENS as an exception.Like the popes and saints he was not saying anything new as was Pope Benedict and Cardinal Ladaria.

It was Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston and  the cardinals at Rome which had brought the innovation into the Church with BOD, etc being  alleged exceptions to traditional EENS and the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.

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.-Lionel Andrades


Graphics http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2016/03/pope-benedict-breaks-silence-and.html
http://connecticutcatholiccorner.blogspot.com/2018/07/how-can-dogma-change.html


________________________________
________________________________