As expected Fr.Thomas Weinandy wrote about the necessity of believing in Jesus, for salvation and he excluded the necessity of membership in the Church, to avoid Hell. Since for him, and also the United States Conference of Bishops( USCCB) , it is the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney (LOHO) which was correct.The Jesuit Fr.Leonard Feeney was wrong.So he presents a Christology without the traditional ecclesio centric ecclesiology( Athanasius Creed, Catechism of Pope Pius X on extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the dogma Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441).
For him unknown and invisible cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) were known and practical exceptions to EENS.
This is how it was for LOHO and Pope Pius XII.
So Fr.Weinandny can no more say like the Magisterium of the 16th century that outside the Church there is no salvation. There is salvation for him.
So he presents Jesus, without the necessity of the Church in general, for salvation. He rejects the dogma EENS, like the rest of the USCCB.He rejects the Athanasius Creed too.
For him it is salvation in Jesus without the Church, in general.There is no exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church for him is one of many Christian denominations,since there is known salvation outside the Church for him.
The following are the mistakes Fr. Weinandy support.
1.There is no need for a non Catholic to convert into the Catholic Church since he could be saved in his religion with BOD, BOB and I.I etc.LG 8 etc are exceptions to EENS for him.
This is the New Theology of Rahner and Ratzinger, based upon known exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.
2.It's also possible, for him, that most people are saved in their religion.Since in principle there is salvation outside the Church. So there is a reasonable hope for most people to be saved says Bishop Robert Barron the Head of the USCCB Evangelisation Department.For Bishop Barron and Fr. Weinandty there is known salvation outside the Church. So the past ecclesiology becomes obsolete.There is a new ecclesiology with exceptions to EENS.
3.It means that the missionaries in the 16th century were wrong on EENS. Since EENS is obsolete for Fr.Weinandy.
4.So God wills a plurality of religions, whose members do not have to convert, since LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 refer to practically known exceptions, of salvation outside the Church in the present times or the past.This is what the USCCB theologian suggests like the U.S bishops and Pope Francis and Pope Benedict.
5.Protestants, who contracep.abort and divorce, but believe in Jesus, are also going to Heaven in general since they believe in Jesus.
Even a Catholic in mortal sin believes in Jesus but at the time of death he will not be going to Heaven.
6.The Episcopalians support gay marriages and also believe in Jesus and so will be saved for the USCCB.
7.The Jehovah's witnesses also believe in Jesus. They say that Jesus is one with St. Michael the Archangel.They reject Jesus' teachings on Hell.They interpret the Bible according to their founder.They will be going to Heaven for Fr. Weinandy.
Fr.Weinandy's report in the Catholic Thing and LifeSite News 1 reminds me of the anonymous Coetus International group's comment on the Amazon Synod Working Paper. It was Christology with no traditional ecclesiology. So I know, that for them too the LOHO was correct and Fr. Leonard Feeney was wrong.
The Amazon Working Paper was rejecting exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church and the Coetus Anonymous group was wrong to quote Christological passages in Dominus Iesus.
Since Cardinal Hummers could simply say that the pagans in the Amazon are saved through Jesus and the Church without knowing or believing in Him. For Cardinal Hummers, and Cardinal Ratzinger, there is known salvation outside the Church. Since there is known salvation outside the Church people in other religions could be saved without knowing or believing in Jesus.Then they assume that there actually are such cases. For Bishop Barron most of the non Catholics are in the saved-category.
This New Theology is expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (846).It says all who are saved through Christ and His Church. It says ' all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body'.As if this is an exception to exclusive salvation. Yes all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church and all need to enter the Church as members, with faith and baptism, to avoid Hell ( for salvation).
Coetus should have cited Ad Gentes 7 interpreted with Feeneyism ( invisible people are invisible and so are not practical exceptions to EENS).They needed to interpret Vatican Council II in general with Feeneyism.It is only then that Vatican Council II would support an ecclesiocentric ecclesiology.It would be Jesus with the necessity of faith and baptism for salvation(AG 7) and not Fr. Weinandy's vague understanding of Jesus.
When the jailer asked St. Peter what must he do to be saved. He was told he simply had to believe in Jesus. This is true. However over time the jailer and his family would have to avoid mortal sin and known the faith-teachings of the community.
But for the Coetus group and the Lefebvrists, the LOHO, with the objective error was acceptable and so there can only be a Christology without the past ecclesiology. This is the new theology of Cardinal Ratzinger/ Pope Benedict who have even corrupted Magisterial and Legislative texts.
Today the value of Legislative texts are being questioned. They are not, at least, infallible.
Fr. Karl Rahner sh, placed the LOHO in the Denzinger. The LOHO carries an objective mistake.BOD, BOB and I.I are not practical exceptions to EENS. There are no literal cases in 2019. There were none in 1965 and neither in 1949. So LOHO has a document with a factual error.
Denzinger no more carries the same authority as in the past.
The LOHO was referenced in Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are all cited today based upon the LOHO reasoning.Irrationality is the norm in the Church and Fr. Weinandy has also been affected.
This is a common mistake in the interpretation of Vatican Council II. Vatican Council II has an error. This is not the work of the Holy Spirit.
Based upon this error Fr.Thomas Weinandy would interpret LG 8 etc as literal exceptions to Feeneyite EENS. This was the reasoning of the popes from Paul VI.
We know now LG 8 always refer to an invisible case irrespective if your view on LOHO or Fr.Leonard Feeney.
So the limitation in the article by Fr. Thomas Weinandy was expected.
He has also written an article on ecclesiology 2 and mentioned the four marks of the Church.He does not affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS like the missionaries in the 16th century. For those Jesuit missionaries too, there were the four marks of the Church but there could not be known salvation outside the Church for them.
So Lumen Gentium 8, 14 and 16 would not contradict the ecclesiology of the Church in the Middle Ages.
Fr. Weinandy cites passages from Lumen Gentium but does not affirm exclusive salvation in the Church. Since LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc would be practical and literal exceptions to the dogma EENS.
He supports LOHO.
So he uses the irrational reasoning of LOHO.
His ecclesiology can no more compare the Church to the Ark of Noah in which all need to enter to be saved,.
He is a liberal like the present two popes.His ecclesiology is the same as that of Cardinal Walter Kasper.
Fr:Weinandy still wants to please the USCCB and the CDF and the Left. He does not want to support Feeneyite EENS by showing Catholics the difference between Cushigism and Feeneyism, visible and invisible cases of BOD, BOB and I.I, EENS with or without exceptions,Vatican Council II as a rupture or continuity with EENS etc.
It is not enough to simply refer to the four marks of the Church. Since even the liberals do the same and they interpret Magisterial documents with Cushingism; they use a false premise to create a rupture with Tradition.For them there is a new ecclesiology based upon an irrational premise and they accept the liberal conclusion. Similarly for the Lefbvrists there is a new ecclesiology created with an irrational premise and this is their ecclesiology at the Latin Mass..-Lionel Andrades
1
The Primacy of Jesus and the Church’s Liturgical Year
2.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment