Feeneyism: It is the old theology and philosophical reasoning which says there are no known
exceptions past or present, to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla
salus(EENS).There are no explicit cases to contradict the traditional
interpretation of EENS.It affirms traditional EENS like the missionaries
and magisterium of the 16th century.
Cushingism: It
is the new theology and philosophical reasoning, which assumes there
are known exceptions, past and present, to the dogma EENS.There are
exceptions to all needing to be incorporated into the Church for
salvation.It wronly assumes that the baptism of desire etc are not
hypothetical but objectively known.In principle hypothetical cases are
objective in the present times.So it uses the false premise to reject
the traditional interpretation of EENS.
Irrational premise: It is assuming hypothetical cases are not hypothetical but instead are objective cases in the present times.
It assumes invisible and unknown people are visible and unknown in our reality.
Baptism of Desire ( premise-free): It
refers to the hypothetical case of an unknown catechumen who desires
the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved. Since
this is an invisible case in our reality it, the baptism of desire, is
not relevant to the dogma EENS.
Baptism of Desire (with the false premise): It
refers to the known case of a catechumen who desires the baptism of
water but dies before he receives it and is saved.A known person is
assumed to be known.
Invincible Ignorance ( premise-free): This
refers to the hypothetical case of someone allegedly saved without the
baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.Since
it is a hypothetical case it is not an exception to the dogma EENS.The
false premise was not used.
Invincible Ignorance (with the false premise): This
refers to the explicit case of someone allegedly saved without the
baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.Since
it is an exception to the dogma EENS it is assumed to be objectively
known in particular cases.This reasoning is irrational.
Council of Florence: One
of the three Councils which defined the dogma EENS.It did not mention
any exception.It did not mention the baptism of desire. It was premise-free.
Liberal theologians: They
re-interpreted the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible
ignorance, as objective cases, known in the present times.They used the false premise.
Vatican Council II (with the premise):
It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II without the false premise.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer not to hypothetical but known cases in the present times. So Vatican Council II emerges as a break with the dogma EENS.
Vatican Council II ( premise-free):It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II without the false premise.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to hypothetical cases, which are unknown personally in the present times.So Vatican Council II is not a
break with EENS, the Syllabus of Errors, ecumenism of return, the
Nicene Creed ( premise-free),the teaching on the Social Reign of Christ
the King over all political legislation and the non separation of Church
and State( since all need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell).
Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston:(with the false premise)
It
assumed hypothetical cases were defacto known in the present times. So
it presented the baptism of desire etc as an explicit exception, to the
traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS.It censured Fr.Leonard
Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.Since they did not assume that the
baptism of desire referred to a visible instead of invisible case.The
Letter made the baptism of desire etc relevant to EENs.From the second
part of this Letter has emerged the New Theology.It used the false premise.
Letter of the Holy Office 1949 ( premise-free). It means interpreting the first part of the the Letter without the false premise.Only the first part.It
supports Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.The traditional interpretatiion
of the dogma EENS does not mention any exceptions.However the second
part of the Letter contradicts the first part since it uses the false
premise.
Letter of the Holy Office ( with the false premise).The
second part of the Letter rejects the traditional interpretation of
EENS. Since it considers the baptism of desire ( with the premise) and
being saved in invincible ignorance ( with the premise) as being
exceptions to EENS (premise-free). In other words they are mistaken for
being visible and known cases when they really are invisible for us.It
wrongly assumes hypothetical cases are objectively visible and so they
are exceptions to the first part of the Letter.
Baltimore Catechism: It
assumed that the desire for the baptism of an unknown catechumen, who
dies before receiving it and was saved, was a baptism like the baptism
of water. So it was placed in the Baptism Section of the catechism. In
other words it was wrongly assumed that the baptism of desire is visible
and repeatable like the baptism of water or that we can administer it
like the baptism of water.The Baltimore Catechism is accepted with the confusion.It can be interpreted premise-free.
Catechism of Pope X: It
followed the Baltimore Catechism and placed the baptism of desire in
the Baptism Section.It can be interpreted as being premise -free. The
references to invincible ignorance etc have to be interpreted without
the false premise. So it does not contradict the dogma EENS( premise-free).
Nicene Creed ( with the premise): It
says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' and means
there are more than three known baptisms when the false premise is used
in the interpretation. They are water, blood, desire, seeds of the Word
etc.This is an irrational but common understanding.
Nicene Creed ( premise-free): It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and means there is one known baptism the baptism of water.
New Theology: : (with the premise) It
refers to the new theology in the Catholic Church based on hypothetical
cases being objective in the present times.So it eliminates the dogma
EENS.With the dogma EENS made obsolete the ecclesiology of the Church
changes. There is a new ecclesiology which is a break with Tradition.It
is of course based on the false premise.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( with the false premise).It
refers to the dogma but with exceptions.All do not need to defacto
convert into the Church in the present times, since there are
exceptions.The baptism of desire( with the premise), baptism of blood(
with the premise) and being saved in invincible ignorance( with the
premise) are exceptions to dogma as it was known to the missionaries in
the 16th century.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( premise-free): It refers
to the dogma as it was interpreted over the centuries.There are no
known exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church, with faith
and baptism, to avoid Hell.Invisible for us baptism of desire, baptism
of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are not visible
exceptions to all needing to be incorporated into the Catholic Church
for salvation.
Catechism of the Catholic Church ( with the premise): CCC
1257 contradicts the Principle of Non Contraduction. Also CCC 848 is
based on the new theology and so is a rupture with the dogma EENS(
premise-free). So this is an interpretation of the Catechism with the false premise.
Catechism of the Catholic Church ( premise-free): CCC
1257 does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction since there
are no known exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for
salvation. There are no known cases in the present times of God not
being not limited to the Sacraments(CCC1257).
When
CCC 846 states all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the
Church,CCC 846 does not contradict the dogmatic teaching on all needing
to formally enter the Church.It is a reference to a hypothetical case
and not somebody known. CCC 846 does not contradict Ad Gentes 7 which
states all need faith and baptism for salvation.
Posts
