Fr. Leonard Feeney, Sr. Catherine Goddard Clarke and Brother Fancis MICM in the original community at the St. Benedict Center (SBC) and Brother Thomas Augustine and Brother Andre Marie at the SBC today did not know that Vatican Council II could have been interpreted with LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc referring to hypothetical cases.So the Council would not contradict the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
There would be Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) instead of the present Vatican Council II ( Cushingite).It would be Vatican Council II (without the irrational premise) instead of the present interpretation, with the false premise i.e for example, LG 8 is visible and known in personal cases and so there are known non Catholics saved outside the Church where the true Church or Christ subsists or where there are elements of sanctification and truth in other religions.
The St. Benedict Center, interpreted Vatican Council II like Pope Paul VI and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
At the time of Fr. Leonard Feeney, in 1965, they would have been disappointed with Vatican Council II.They would have also have interpreted LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc as being exceptions to EENS. There were exceptions for Rahner, Ratzinger, Cushing, Murray and many of the Council Fathers.
So even though there were no exceptions to EENS for the St. Benedict Center, there were exceptions to EENS in Vatican Council II, for them.
No one corrected the mistake in public.
No one said Vatican Council II can be interpreted as not having exceptions to EENS when LG 8, LG 14, LG 16,UR 3 etc refer to hypothetical cases and not objective people saved outside the Church.-Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment