Those days are of saying that Fr. Leonard Feeney was wrong are over. We know that Lumen Gentium 8 always refers to a physically invisible case.

 

 

 

Those days are of saying that Fr. Leonard Feeney was wrong are over. We know that Lumen Gentium 8 always refers to a physically invisible case.No one saw a St.Emerentiana in Heaven without the baptism of water.There is no known Good Thief in 2019.The baptism of desire always refer to a hypothetical case only. No one saw anyone saved in invincible ignorance in 1949, 1965 or 2019. No one will know of any one saved outside the Church in 2020. There never ever were any known exceptions to Fr. Leonard Feeney's interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).

The Council Fathers should not have mentioned LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc .They are all hypothetical and speculative cases and irrelevant to the need for all to enter the Church with faith and baptism for salvation(AG 7).LG 8 etc was never ever were exceptions to EENS and the past ecclesiology of the Church.

 

Fr. Leonard Feeney was correct and the Holy Office (CDF) was wrong in 1949.But even if is said Fr. Leonard Feeney was wrong, for whatever reason, LG 8, LG 14 and LG 16 are always hypothetical cases and so are not exceptions to the old ecclesiology.UR 3 is always a hypothetical case only and so is not an exception to an ecumenism of return.

LG 14(baptism of desire) and LG 16 ( invincible ignorance) are always hypothetical and speculate only and so are not exceptions to traditional mission and evangelisation as it was known to the Jesuits and missionaries in the Middle Ages.

So, what's new?-Lionel Andrades