To understand what I write on this subject (Vatican Council II in harmony with 16 century EENS) it would be helpful to see the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO) as being wrong and Fr. Leonard Feeney as being correct.
2.It would be helpful to keep in mind that the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) are always hypothetical.As Ann Barnhardt put it, being saved in invincible ignorance 'exists technically only on paper'. Or, as the apologist John Martignoni said, 'Zero cases of something (BOD, BOB and I.I) cannot be exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus'.
3.It would be helpful to keep in mind that in real life, in 2020, we cannot meet or see someone saved with BOD, BOB and I.I.
4.So if we are talking about salvation outside the Church we refer to something known only to God.
5.Similarly if we say there are exceptions to EENS and the Athanasius Creed we refer to something known only to God.
Now keep these five points in mind and re-read Vatican Council IIl
Re-read the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO).
Ask yourself why did the LOHO assume that BOD and I.I are exceptions to EENS ? Did they confuse what was invisible as being visible ?
Ask yourself why did the Council Fathers at Vatican Council II mention LG 8, LG 14, LG16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc ? Did they assume they were visible cases ?
Remember for 19 years Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston and the popes, did not lift the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney - and Cardinal Cushing was active at Vatican Council II.
Pope John XXIII did not lift the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney, why ? Did he want the world to believe that invisible cases of BOD, BOB and I.I were visible exceptions to EENS ?
Why did not Pope Paul VI and the cardinals simply asssume that there was nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the strict interpretation of EENS ?
LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc referred to invisible and hypothetical cases and so could not be exceptions to EENS and the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church ? Are they exceptions to the past exclusivist ecclesiology for you ?
So what if Congar,Rahner ,Bea, Murray and Ratzinger were there at Vatican Council II ? It required only one person to bring out the truth in public.The Council supports the strict interpretation of EENS. The Council is Feeneyite.
It only required one person to announce that UR 3 refers to an invisible case and so it does not contradict the past ecumenism.UR 3 cannot be the basis for a New Ecumenism in which Christians do not need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation.
It required only one person to announce that LG 8 refers to an invisible case and so it does not contradict Feeneyite EENS and the past ecclesiocentric ecclesiology.
Why did every one mix up what is invisible as being visible and then reject Tradition ?
So many religious, men and women, lost their vocation because of Vatican Council II intepreted with the false premise.They chose not to be priests and nuns any more.They thought the Church had changed. Everything had changed.
Though when I read Vatican Council II I do not confuse what is invisible as being visible. So there are no objective exceptions to 16th century EENS. Invisible people cannot be objective examples of salvation outside the Church.
The Church still teaches, for me, according to Vatican Council II, that all need faith and the baptism of water for salvation (AG 7).Vatican Council II is orthodox and there are no exceptions to this orthodoxy.
So they did make a mistake at Vatican Council II and in the LOHO.The mistake sas to be rejected by us and Vatican Council II re-interpreted with the false premise. Then we are back to the old ecclesiocentric ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. This is easily achieved when the false premise is avoided.-Lionel Andrades
It does not have to be either the baptism of desire or extra ecclesiam nulla salus : Just one Religious Superior is needed to understand and affirm this and we will have changed the Church
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/12/it-does-not-have-to-be-either-baptism_92.html
It does not have to be either the baptism of desire or extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Understand this line and then change your interpretation of Vatican Council II
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/12/it-does-not-have-to-be-either-baptism_21.html
Feeneyism is the missing link
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2016/10/feeneyism-is-missing-link.html
We have found the missing link as to what creates a hermeneutic of rupture in the interpretation of Vatican Council II. We do not need a new Syllabus of Errors on Vatican Council II as Bishop Athansius Schneider once suggested.
We do not need a Syllabus of Errors on Vatican Council II since we have found the missing link which decides the hermeneutic of continuity and it is the same missing link needed to have a rational theology once again; the old ecclesiology with the Novus Ordo and the Traditional Latin Mass.-Lionel Andrades
Cardinal Raymond Burke and Fr.Nicholas Gruner affirm the same error as do the liberals
Posts
