MARCH 15, 2017
Can you interpret Vatican Council II, EENS, BOD and I.I with Cushingism and Feeneyism?
The Emperor Valentinian II was on the way to Milan to be baptized when he was assassinated; St. Ambrose said of him that his desire had been the means of his cleansing.
So could St.Ambrose physically see the Emperor saved in Heaven or did he speculate and hope that he was saved ?
If
St.Ambrose could see the Emperor in Heaven or on earth saved without
the baptism of water, then the Emperor was an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). If he could not physically see him, saved without the baptism of water, then the Emperor is not an exception.
For
there to be an exception to EENS there has to be an actual person saved
outside the Church.There must be some one real, who is saved without
the baptism of water in the Catholic Church and who is known to us.
A
speculative case cannot be an objective exception to the teaching on
all needing faith and baptism (AG 7, Vatican Council II) for salvation.
The Catechism of Popè Pius X says all need to be members of the Church
for salvation. This means all need faith and the baptism of water for
salvation.This is the traditional norm. The ordinary way of salvation.
Did the Emperor meet the norm? How can we know ? We cannot. This would only be known to God. If there are exceptions it would only be known to God.
We can hope only, like St.Ambrose that the Emperor was saved.
So Cushingites
cite the case of the Emperor as an exception to the traditional
interpretation of the dogma EENS and the past exclusivist ecclesiology
of the Church.Feeneyites reject the Emperor being an example of salvation outside the Church. Since no one can physically see exceptions to the dogma EENS.
This
is an important point since it determines how we interpret Vatican
Council II, EENS, the baptism of desire, invincible ignorance etc.
Can you interpret Vatican Council II, EENS, BOD and I.I with Cushingism or Feeneyism?
Do you understand what I am trying to get at?
When there are no physical cases of BOD and I.I then it is Feeneyism.
When it is assumed that there are physically known cases in the past or future of BOD and I.I then it is Cushingism.
So
when St. Thomas Aquinas mentioned the man in the forest in ignorance
who would be saved when God would send a preacher to him is this case of
Feeneyism or Cushingism for you? Why?
St.Thomas Aquinas and St.Augustine were Feeneyites, always.
St.Thomas Aquinas and St.Augustine were Feeneyites, always.
-Lionel Andrades
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/09/repost-can-you-interpret-vatican.html
No comments:
Post a Comment