CDF must acknowledge that this mistake coming from the Fr. Leonard Feeney case is responsible for the hermeneutic of rupture when interpreting Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church(1994).

Ecclesiastics made a mistake in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case.They projected unknown cases of the baptism of desire etc as being known people saved outside the Church.It seems as if they had an agenda.It was to eliminate the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).

We now know that the saints and popes over the centuries referred to the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood (BOB)and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) but knew that they were hypothetical cases and could not be objective exceptions to EENS.

The liberal bishops and cardinals,however, projected BOD, BOB and I.I as being objectively known people and so they put aside the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS.

Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits in the USA, and especially at Boston College, put restrictions on Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center for holding the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS. 

The Archbishop of Boston, the Rector at Boston College and some of the cardinals at Rome, wanted Fr. Leonard Feeney to pretend that BOD, BOB and I.I were objective exceptions to all needing to enter the Church as members.

The error was not corrected by Pope Pius XII , Cardinall Ottaviani and  Cardinal Siri. Neither did Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre notice the error.He was mixing up what was subjective as being objective, invisible as being visible.
Then in Vatican Council II the same mistake was repeated.The error became official.The error is clearly there in Lumen Gentium 14.However in principle the Council Fathers assumed hypothetical cases were relevant to the dogma EENS.

The mistake was not corrected but instead was supported by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and not corrected by Pope John Paul II.Even in March 2016 (Avvenire) Pope Benedict suggested that Vatican Council II interpreted with the false premise was a rupture with the past ecclesiology of the Church and the dogma EENS as it was known to the Jesuits in the Middle Ages.

He was affirming heresy and schism and was being politically correct with the Left and other enemies of the Catholic Church.

Now we realize that without the false premise, not only EENS but also Vatican Council II can be re-interpreted.The Council emerges in with Tradition and the old interpretation of outside the Church there is no salvation.This is something that even the traditionalists associated with Archbishop Lefebvre cannot believe today.
Once they understand they would be able to see that the SSPX can affirm traditional EENS, the Syllabus of Errors and the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church without rejecting Vatican Council II, interpreted without the false premise.They could inform the CDF that they endorse Vatican Council II without the irrational premise and that canonical recognition is still an issue for them since the CDF interprets Vatican Council II with the false premise and they want this to stop.

But we are still back to the Fr. Leonard Feeney case.A correction has to be made there. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF) must acknowledge that a mistake was made officially by them.

They are still interpreting hypothetical cases as being non hypothetical and objective examples of salvation outside the Church.

This was the mistake Cardinal Luiz Ladaria and Pope Benedict made when they were associated with the International Theological Commission.The mistake is there in the papers Christianity and the World Religions and The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without being Baptised.

Both these papers indicate that Cardinal Ladaria the present Prefect of the CDF assumed BOD, BOB and I.I were objective exceptions to the dogma EENS. 
He confirmed the error at the Placuit Deo Press Conference on March 1 when he interpreted Lumen Gentium 8 as being an exception to the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church. The original mistake was made in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case and he is just following it like everybody else at the Vatican.

APOLOGY FROM THE CDF NEEDED

This is a philosophical mistake. It violates the Principle of Non Contradiction. We cannot see someone saved without the baptism of water in Heaven. There would have to be someone saved as such in Heaven who is also visible and known on earth,to be an exception to traditional EENS.

Also if someone was allegedly saved as such in the past( which is irrational in itself) this person cannot be an objective exception to the dogma EENS in 2018.

So the CDF must acknowledge that this mistake coming from the Fr. Leonard Feeney case is responsible for the hermeneutic of rupture when interpreting Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church(1994).

-Lionel Andrades

AUGUST 15, 2018

The CDF needs to apologize for the error in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case.It has a direct bearing on how we interpret Vatican Council II. The Council becomes a rupture or continuity with the past

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-cdf-needs-to-apologize-for-error-in.html