May be Fr. Leonard Feeney did not know

 I e-mailed the following report ' Did Fr. Leonard Feeney comment on Vatican Council II?'  extensively.

No one has defended the good priest from Boston.

None of his supporters have said that Fr. Leonard Feeney knew that LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II could be interpreted as not being practical exceptions to Tradition ( EENS, Athanasius Creed, Sylllabus of Errors etc).

Did he say that Vatican Council II had a continuity with Tradition ?

May be he did not know.

May be Brother Francis Maluf MICM,Brother Thomas Mary , Sennott and Charles A.Colombe   did not know.-Lionel Andrades

_____________________

APRIL 7, 2021

Did Fr.Leonard Feeney comment on Vatican Council II ?

 

 

Did Fr.Leonard Feeney comment on Vatican Council II ? There can be two interpretations of the Council. One interpretation is with the common false premise and the other without it.Did Brother Francis Maluf MICM, one of the pioneer members of Father Feeney’s religious Order, the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary,interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise? Did he say that the Council was Feeneyite and so supported the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus?

 

Brother Andre Marie MICM on the website Catholicism.org has criticized Vatican Council II.This could imply that he was using the false premise at that time. He has also posted articles on Mons. Joseph Clifford Fenton and Amerio Romano. They both accepted the Letter of the Holy Office(CDF) 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston(LOHO). So they interpreted Vatican Council II and EENS with the false premise. They confused what is invisible as being visible and then projected practical exceptions for EENS.This error is is still followed by the Society of St. Pius X and the sedevacantist communities.

 

Even Ludwig Ott, like Roberto dei Mattei and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, accepted LOHO with the objective error.For Ott unknown cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance,were known and practical exceptions to EENS in the present times.They were literally known, for him. He did not identify the false premise.

It is the same with Brother Thomas Augustine MICM, Superior, at the St. Benedict Center, Still River,MA.They have compromised on Vatican Council II and EENS.1

 Brother Thomas Mary Sennott,Charles A.Colombe  and Phil Lawler,  did not know that if LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II would refer to hypothetical and theoretical cases only - then the Council would not contradict 16th century EENS ?. -Lionel Andrades

1

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2017/12/bishop-thomas-augustine-micm-and-slaves.html

 

LOHO (Letter of the Holy Office 1949)

   

Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj the present Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF), Vatican was the Secretary of the International Theological Commission, Vatican.

   

______________________________