Question : What is EENS?
Answer :
EENS = extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
It is Latin for outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation and there are no known exceptions.
Now there is EENS Feeneyite and EENS Cushingite.
EENS Cushingite says outside the Church there is no salvation but there are also known exceptions.This is contradictory but it is the common interpretation in the Church.
EENS Feeneyite is the traditional view held by the popes and saints. It was defined by three Church Councils in the extra ordinary Magisterium.
EENS Cushingite emerged with the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston relative to the Jesuit priest Fr. Leonard Feeney.
The Council Fathers at Vatican Council II were influenced by the Letter of the Holy Office(LOHO) and attempted to get rid of EENS Feeneyite at the Council.
So like LOHO they interpreted hypothetical cases as being objective examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church and so they inferred that there were known exceptions to EENS Feeneyite. This was irrational .Their premise was wrong. But it was accepted at Vatican Council II.
Now it is realised that if we do not use the false premise, if we do not mix up what is invisible as being invisible then LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc do not contradict EENS Feeneyite.
So with Vatican Council II interpreted rationally we are back to EENS as it was known to the Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church and there is no schism with the popes of the past. There is no theological division in the Church.
This now is a problem for the present two popes and the liberals since they cannot quote Vatican Council II any more by using the false premise.
It means there is no theological basis for the New Theology, New Ecumenism, New Ecclesiology and New Evangelisation which were based upon there being salvation outside the Church and objective exceptions to EENS.
It also means that the cardinals and bishops who affirm Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) and not Vatican Council II( Cushingite) would be considered rational and traditional but also politically incorrect with the Left.-Lionel Andrades
Posts
Comments from the blog The Meaning of Catholic the blog of Timothy S. Flanders
My reply:
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2020/08/dialogue-6-w-1p5-columnist-timothy-flanders.html
This statement is factually untrue, and it is simple to prove it: by recourse to the Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis redintegratio) and its footnotes, which are comprised of copious references to Holy Scripture (which may be considered “prior magisterium”: being inspired revelation) in 35 out of 42 of the notes. The other seven make reference to previous magisterial conciliar documents (five, referring to five councils: Florence being cited three times) or Church fathers (two: St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom). Here are the ones referring to prior councils:…- Dave Amstrong
If by that, you mean that the documents contain literal heresy that binds the faithful, I say no: it’s not possible (and this follows from Vatican I, Pastor aeternus, since the ecumenical council must be ratified by the pope, who cannot fall into such error). -Dave Armstrong
When we interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise we create a false church within the Catholic Church.
When we accept the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which interprets EENS with a false premise we create a false church within the Catholic Church.
When we interpret the Nicene Creed with the baptism of the desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance being objective cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church without the baptism of water( this is a false premise), we create a false church within the Catholic Church.
We cannot see St. Emerentiana in Heaven without the baptism of water. We cannot meet or see someone saved without faith and the baptism of water (Ad Gentes 7). So we have to re-read Vatican Council II knowing that the Council is referring to hypothetical cases only. It is not referring to known non Catholics saved outside the Church.This would be irrational. Though this was the false reasoning of the Council Fathers ( Cushing, Rahner, Ratzinger etc).
Pope Paul VI interpreted Vatican Council II with a false premise and inference. In this way he contradicted the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). EENS was defined by three Church Councils in the Extraordinary Form. So did he discard the dogma on the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra, in Vatican Council I ?