It was based upon the error the CDF(Holy Office 1949) made in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case that at the Placuit Deo Press Conference on March 1,2018 Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj interpreted Lumen Gentium 8 as being an exception to the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.
The original mistake was made by 'the Church ' in the Boston Case. He repeated it like everybody at the Vatican.1
For Cardinal Ladaria hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire etc are objective exceptions Feeneyite EENS.
Similarly for him hypothetical cases of LG 8 etc are objective exception to the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.
So in principle he assumes hypothetical cases are not hypothetical in the present time. This was the reasoning in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which was repeated at Vatican Council II.
I am aware of the error.
So for me hypothetical cases of BOD, BOB and I.I are not objective in 2018.
Similarly hypothetical cases of LG 8, UR 3, GS 22 etc are not objective and known people in 2018 saved outside the Church.
So BOD, BOB and I.I are not exceptions for me to Feeneyite EENS.
Neither are LG 8 etc practical exceptions to the past exclusivist eccelesiology of the Catholic Church.
So contrary what Cardinal Ladaria suggested at the Placuit Deo Press Conference(See 28:53 on the video), the Church still has the superiority and exclusiveness of salvation.
-Lionel Andrades
1
AUGUST 16, 2018
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)
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/08/cdf-must-acknowledge-that-this-mistake.html
Cardinal Luiz Ladaria takes the cake : What has 'the river of interpretations of Lumen Gentium 8 subsist it ' to do with EENS when they are all hypothetical and invisible cases?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment