Jim Russsell interpreted Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus irrationally, using the false premise. He then projected practical exceptions for Feeneyite EENS.He criticized Fr. Leonard Feeney for not accepting the common irrationality.
This is common and so CMTV ignored the mistake.
The SSPX also interprets invincible ignorance with a false premise and then cites invincible ignorance as a practical exception to Feeneyite EENS. Since invincible ignorance is mentioned in the Catechism of Pope Pius X, they conclude that this Catechism contradicts Feeneyite EENS.
Since St. Thomas Aquinas mentions the man in the forest in invincible ignorance who will be saved, they conclude that St. Thomas Aquinas contradicts Feeneyite EENS.
Similarly the liberals cite invincible ignorance (LG 16) and the baptism of desire(LG 14) mentioned in Vatican Council II and interpret these hypothetical cases as being objective cases in the present times; non Catholics saved outside the Church without faith and baptism. Then they conclude that Vatican Council II (LG 14, LG 16 etc) contradicts Feeneyite EENS.
Similarly Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and Fr. Luiz Ladaria sj, in two papers of the International Theological Commission, accepted the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston(LOHO) during the pontificate of Pope Pius X. The LOHO interpreted the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance as being exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.This was s accepted by the ITC and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican. - Lionel Andrades
https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/fr.-feeneys-strange-doctrine
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment