I can not even imagine how you could possibly defend Father Feeney who at the very LEAST misunderstood the teaching of the Catholic Church on BOB, BOD and II
Fr: Leonard Feeney was not saying any thing knew. Instead he was rejecting the theological innovation, based on an irrationality, which was brought into the Catholic Church.
He was affirming the 'strict' interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus; outside the Church there is no salvation.He was doing this without assuming invisible cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood( BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) were visible exceptions to the traditional teaching on all needing to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation with no known exceptions( Catechism of the Catholic Church, Athanasius Creed, Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441 etc).
At the same time he theoretically and hypothetically accepted BOD, BOB and I.I as is seen in his book The Bread of Life. He could, conceive of the theoretical case of the unknown catechumen who desired the baptism of water before he died and would allegedly be saved.For him it could only result in justification. For salvation the baptism of water was always needed.
The Catechism of Pope Pius X, like Fr. Leonard Feeney says that all need to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation and that Protestants etc are on the way to Hell since they are outside the Church. This Catechism also mentions the case of someone theoretically being saved in invincible ignorance etc.It does not state that this is a known person saved outside the Church. Since obviously there is no such known person. This is a given.
However liberal theologians interpreted invincible ignorance in this Catechism, and magisterial documents in general, as referring not to an invisible person. For me however this Catechism refers to a physically invisible person who is allegedly saved in invincible ignorance.
So for the theologicans this Catechism would contradict itself and the dogma EENS as it was interpreted over the centuries. This error was also overlooked by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and those who have had their religious formation under him or his bishops.
They all interpret invincible ignorance in the Catechism of Pope Pius X as contradicting the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church. So hypothetical cases in Vatican Council II are also made a rupture with EENS as it was interpreted by the missionaries and Magisterium in the 16h century.
Pope Benedict confirmed this error in public ( Avvenire, March 2016) and Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj at the Placuet Deo Press Conference, question and answer session( March 1, 2018).
So Fr. Leonard Feeney held the de fide teaching on EENS and BOD, BOB and I.I and those who excommunicated were teaching heresy. They were rejecting traditional EENS with known and visible for them cases of BOD, BOB and I.I.For Fr.Leonard Feeney literally there were no cases of BOD, BOB and I.I.
-Lionel Andrades
SEPTEMBER 20, 2018
Fr.Leonard Feeney did not have to reject BOD, BOB and I.I theologically, since there is no theology for him with BOD,BOB and I.I being exceptions. They do not exist.Literally they are not there
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/09/frleonard-feeney-did-not-have-to-reject.html
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment