Prayerful
- St. Joseph's Workbench
- Hauptmann
- Posts: 6318
- Thanked: 2688 times
- Religion: Catholic
Now they walk back much of their defence.
Fr. Feeney’s Strange Doctrine
Sad!
Just because Church Militant allowed one of their contributors to write an article critical of Fr. Feeney does not necessarily mean that the entire apostolate is "walking back much of their defense." I know some people who work for CM who definitely would not be favorably impressed by Jim Russell's atrocious article.
Russell repeats the untenable position that every teaching in Vatican II is of itself infallible because, according to him, an Ecumenical Council cannot teach error. To posit this even after Pope Paul VI explicitly said that Vatican II differed from other Councils in that it was merely pastoral and refrained from making any dogmatic definitions that are of themselves infallible, is completely dishonest. It is very important to consider that Paul VI, in saying what he said, was acknowledging that dogmatic definitions have been made at other Councils that are of themselves infallible. It logically follows that the first thing any Catholic who is confused as to what he must believe about a particular doctrine should do is look to the dogmatic definitions that have been made at the Church's first twenty Ecumenical Councils. Russell omitted in his article entirely any reference to the of themselves infallible definitions of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus made at the Fourth Lateran Council and the Council of Florence. The defintions of the dogma made at these Councils completely vindicate Fr. Feeney and the St. Benedict Center:Quote“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all is saved.” (Lateran VI, Pope Innocent III)
“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Council of Florence, Pope Eugene IV)
In the comments section of the article Russell defends his proposition that every teaching in Vatican II is of itself infallible because he says that every teaching taught in an Ecumenical Council is a "universal teaching of the Church." This proposition is false because universality includes the attribute of time, and a novel teaching, by definition, lacks this attribute of universality. For a teaching to be considered part of the Church's infallible ordinary and universal magisterium it is not sufficient that it be taught by all bishops throughout the world at a particular time; it must also be something that has been taught throughout all times. Br. Andre Marie, M.I.C.M. wrote an excellent article on this very subject. https://catholicism.org/the-three-levels-of-magisterial-teaching.html
The definition of a heretic is not a baptized person who refuses to believe a teaching of a particular Catechism or a teaching of a particular pastoral Ecumenical Council. The definition of a heretic is a baptized person who refuses to believe a dogma of the faith. The definitions of EENS made at Lateran IV and Florence are dogmas of the faith. Fr. Feeney and the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart have fully assented to these dogmas; Jim Russell has not.
I say 'walk back' as it seems notably contrary to a piece which was a fair and moderate defence of Fr Feeney that doesn't make bold with Teaching. If someone so eminent and moderate as Cardinal Avery Dulles (a late JP2 addition to the College) can see no error with Fr's theology, primarily EENS, critics of which are headed by the contraception supporting and V2 Ecumenist before V2 Cdl Richard Cushing of Boston (personally I prefer Popes, Councils and Saints to that Americanist). I cannot personally know the views of CMTV staff, and really that's less relevant to articles prominently on their website, in fact it is nearly irrelevant. I wish all bloggers could have a correct and Catholic understanding of the matter.
Lionel:
I have mentioned in a previous blog post 1 that there is a small tradition with a small 't' and a big tradition with a big capital 'T'.We can apply it to a particular case. The small t is from the time of Pope Pius XII until today. The big T is from the time before Pope Pius XII.
Since the time of Pope Pius XII the Church has been teaching that there are personally known cases of non Catholics saved with the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I). So there are objective exceptions to EENS for most Catholics today.
Before the time of Pope Pius XII,for centuries, however they knew that BOD, BOB and I.I could only be hypothetical.So they referred to BOD, BOB and I.I speculatively and knew they could not be exceptions to EENS.They were only theoretical. They did not exist in our reality. They could only be known to God.
Catholics today follow the small 't' and believe that it has been the big 'T' in the Church for centuries.They assume that the the saints who refer to BOD, BOB and I.I refer to exceptions to EENS.In other words, personally known non Catholics saved outside the Church. Visible and not invisible people. But this was the thinking in the Church only since Pius XII. It is the small 't'.
Otherwise how could they be exceptions to EENS, the past ecclesiology and an ecumenism of return.This was how the liberals Ratzinger, Rahner and the others interpreted BOD, BOB and I.I with reference to EENS.
For the Society of St. Pius X(SSPX) too the small 't' is the same as the big T.They mix up the two.
Then they believe that they are following Tradition with the big T.But it is only tradition with a small t.
Jim Russel interprets Vatican Council II also with the small 't' and assumes that this was the reasoning of the Church over the centuries.
Cardinal Richard Cushing,the Jesuits of Boston, Fr. Joseph Ratzinger and many others at Vatican Council II, confused the small t as being the big T.It is the same with Russell on Church Militant TV.
So when Russell reads Vatican Council II, LG 8, LG14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc,they refer to personally known people saved outside the Church,for him.He reads the Council with the same small t. So LG 14, LG 16 etc are exceptions to the traditional, centuries old interpretation of EENS. They are also exceptions to Fr. Leonard Feeney's understanding of EENS, according to the big T.
But Russel's understanding of Tradition, on EENS, is as it was known after Pope Pius XII.He mixes up the small t for the big T.
So for Fr. Leonard Feeney the baptism of water is necessary for every one without exception(Augustine, Aquinas etc), but for Jim Russel there are known exceptions of the baptism of desire etc.So every one does not need water baptism for salvation, for him.
So according to the big T (Church Councls, popes) everyone who is in Heaven is there with water-baptism.This is the dogmatic teaching on EENS and we humans cannot know of any exceptions.The big T affirmed the strict interpretation of EENS and the baptism of water was never an exception to EENS.St.Ignatius of Loyola,St. Francis Xavier and St.Robert Bellarmine were all Feeneyites.Since the baptism of desire, blood and invincible ignorance were never exceptions to EENS.
It is only when we read Bellarmine and the Jesuits of his time, with the small 't', then do they appear to contradict Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.
So for the big T, God has chosen to bind salvation to the Sacraments and we do not know any one who is saved outside the Church, since God is not bound to the Sacraments(CCC 1257).God not being bound to the Sacraments is only theory for us.
But with the small 't' Russell will interpret 'God is not bound to the Sacraments' as being known people saved outside the Church.So they become exceptions to Feeneyite EENS for him.
So Russell interprets and accepts the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. Since the Letter see the big 'T' with the lens of the small 't'.
Jim Russell like the CDF and the liberal theologians state on CMTV, 'a Catholic in full communion with the Church can indeed hold as a "private theological opinion" a doctrine that effectively negates the truths behind other doctrines long held by the Church.' He interprets the big T with the small t.This is irrational and heretical.He accepts is as being Magisterial, when it really is a private liberal theological opinion.It is an innovation in the Church since the time of Pope Pius XII.
This is how Russell, the liberals and traditionalists, interpret Vatican Council II.They do not choose to interpret LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc as referring to only hypothetical cases. Then the Council will not be a rupture with the big T.
But then this would be politically incorrect with the Left for Jim Russell.
Catholics wrongly interpret Vatican Council II with the small 't' and assume it is the big 'T'
-Lionel Andrades
1
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment