In the comments on videos with Michael Voris at the St. Benedict Center, in New Hampshire, the same points are repeated by the commentators.
1.It is assumed that Feeneyites reject the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I).This is not true.1
2.It is assumed that the Holy Office 1949 was correct when it considered BOD,BOD and I.I as exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.
3. BOD, BOB and I.I are not exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and so Fr. Leonard Feeney was correct in saying there are no practical exceptions to EENS. So he was not obliged to go to Rome to defend himself. This is not understood by many.
4.Since BOD, BOB and I.I are exceptions to EENS for most people, the Catechism of the Catholic Church 847-848 etc, seem to contradict the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS and also the St. Benedict Center in their interpretation of EENS.
5.Others support Fr. Leonard Feeney and the dogma EENS without citing Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic, when interpreted rationally. Vatican Council II is not a rupture with Feeneyite EENS.
6.Generally the difference between Cushingism and Feeneyism is unknown.The SSPX are Cushingites and so a rupture with Tradition is created by them.
These six points need to be corrected .The error in the interpretation of Magisterial documents can also then end.The error is there from Redemptoris Missio to Placquet Deo.
Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, without the error, are Feeneyite and so support the St.Benedict Center.
This is reading Vatican Council II rationally,without the false premise. Then there are only orthodox text in the Council which support EENS. While the Cushingite passages are neutral to EENS.So no more are there for and against EENS passages in Vatican Council II.
It is only with Cushingism are there for and against EENS passages in Vatican Council II. Since the false premise is used when reading the text.-Lionel Andrades
1
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment