This month John Henry Weston Editor, LifeSites News has posted reports interpreting Vatican Council II with a false premise and inference.In this way he still is politically correct with the Left.
There was the report by Maike Hisckson which considered invisible cases in real life, referred to in UR 3 and LG 8, as being visible and known non Catholics in real life, saved outside the Catholic Church. So UR 3 and LG 8 were exceptions to exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church for her, Weston and Bishop Athanasius Schneider.
Then there was a report by John Paul Meenan an Assistant Professor of Theology who criticized Fr. Leonard Feeney for not accepting exceptions to the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).It is as if there could be practical exceptions to EENS.
LifeSite News in principle considers LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, GS 22 etc as referring to practical exceptions to EENS.This is irrational.
In principle the editor at Life Site News considers hypothetical baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I), as being objective exceptions to Feeneyite EENS. In this way he stays close to the Left and changes Catholic doctrine and theology.
This is a common error in the Catholic Church. They use the premise: what is invisible is visible, to interpet Vatican Council II, BOD, BOB and I.I.In this way they create the 'hermeneutic of rupture' with Tradition( EENS, Athanasius Creed etc).This mistake is common among the liberals and Lefebvrists.
There have been two statements by Bishop Athanasius Schneider on Vatican Council II and in neither of them has he addressed the problem of the common false premise.
If he did not use the false premise he would be affirming Feeneyite EENS.He does not want to support Feeneyite EENS and neither do Weston, Michael Matt, Roberto dei Mattei , among others, want to do the same.
After a few months, again the issue of Vatican Council II will be brought out. They will interpret it with the false premise and not affirm 16th century EENS which has no exceptions.Then they will forget about Vatican Council II for some time.
After a few months again Maike Hickson will produce a report interpreting Vatican Council II with the false premise.Bishop Schneider will issue a statement not affirming Vatican Council II in harmony with Feeneyite EENS, Michael Matt will support EENS with exceptions and then interpret Vatican Council II as having exceptions to EENS. Then they will forget about the issue. None of them will choose to interpret the Council without the false premise.
Roberto dei Mattei will write about Vatican Council II and take it for granted that it is a rupture with Tradition as if no one has corrected him many times before.
But all of them will be careful not to affirm Vatican Council II without the false premise.
In Rome Fr. Marco Hausmann once said that there are no known cases of BOD, BOB and I.I. So he was saying that there are no exceptions to EENS. He was not using the false premise. This was not accepted by Cardinal Matteo Zuppi, the then Auxiliary Bishop at the Rome Vicariate. He along with the San Egidio community represent the Jewish Left in Rome.Vatican Council II had to be interpreted with the false premise for him. It's official.
Lifesites News did not report on Fr. Marco Hausmann's statement or other reports on ths blog.
Even the Remnant News and Catholicism.org do not quote this blog on Vatican Council II.They interpret the Council irrationally and then criticize Vatican Council II.
The Strange Doctrines of Fr. Leonard Feeney by Jim Russell was a report on Church Militant TV.There was no comment on Catholicism.org
Jim Russell cited the Lettter of the Holy Office 1949 and Vatican Council II against Fr. Leonard Feeney. He used the false premise ( visible exceptions of BOD,BOB and I.I and LG 8 etc) to call Fr. Leonard Feeney's traditional interpretation, strange.
Posts
