Monday, May 10, 2010

MARK SHEA AND THE EUCHARIST

In the report by Mark Shea Introduction to the Corporal and Spiritual Works of Mercy 4/27/10 on insideCatholic.com he  is projecting Jesus without the Church. This is contrary to Dominus Iesus.

He writes in a comment:

"Feeneyism strongly promote the theory that only those in visible union with the Catholic Church can be saved" is a pretty accurate assessment of what Feeneyism teaches.
When we do not use the word de facto or de jure then there is confusion.

Yes, Fr.Feeney and all us say that de facto everyone with no exception needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church to avoid Hell.

This is what Fr.Leonard Feeney said, this is what the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus says and so do we.

He then writes in as a comment:

I'm willing to acknowledge that the Church knows what it's talking about when it says that though we are bound by the sacraments,God is not bound.

He is referring to implcit faith ( baptism of desire, invincible ignorance etc) when he he says God is not bound to the Sacraments.He is repeating Lumen Gentium 16,Vatican Council. AND HE IS REFERRING TO IT  AS DE FACTO SALVATION!

This is his heresy!

God is not bound to the Sacraments and so it does not mean that we know de facto that any one in particular has implicit faith. We only affirm it in principle, de jure.There is no de facto baptism of desire that we know of.

To interpret LG 16 and CCC 1257 exceptions which are known only to God as referring to cases we can judge is irrational.

It is an interpretation of LG 16 according to Fr.Hans Kung.

When it is done intentinally it is a mortal sin.

It is  1) grave matter, refuting an ex cathedra dogma,2) done in full freedom and 3) knowingly.

It is also falsely saying that Vatican Council II (LG 16) and the Catechism(1257) are opposed to the ex cathedra dogma.

A PERSON IN PUBLIC MORTAL SIN IS NOT TO BE GIVEN THE EUCHARIST.

Mark Shea has been informed many times.

He then writes in a comment:

The problem is not that I reject EENS. I don't. The problem is that I don't read it in the narrow, flat-footed, hoping-for-the-damnation-of-as-many-as-possible way you do.
He says in his two articles on this subject that he accepts extra ecclesiam nulla salus and then in his articles and comments

1. Interprets implicit faith as referring to DE FACTO SALVATION and so opposed to the infallible teaching.

2. He rejects the dogma which indicates that millions of people are damned if they do not convert. This is also the teaching in Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II.

It is like a person saying that he is oppsed to homosexuality but encourages homosexual marriages.

So the issue is not only extra ecclesiam nulla salus but

1.MORTAL SIN and the 2. EUCHARIST

ROSSIMINIAN PRIEST SAYS EVERYONE MUST BE A VISIBLE MEMBER OF CAT.wmv