When I asked Robert Sungenis if he could interpret Vatican Council II in agreement with Fr.Leonard Feeney he had no answer.He still has no answer after some three months.Then when a few comments/ questions were placed on Faithful Answers on this subject,they were deleted. Sungenis had no apologetics.
Until today- apologists are not willing to affirm the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney on outside the Church there is no salvation.They do not want to endorse the 'rigorist interpretation' which was the traditional interpretation for centuries.Since they would be up against the Left and their bishops and Parish Priests would desert them.
Robert Sungenis still assumes that invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (he still has not pulled down his video on Youtube with this error). He has been informed and he has reasoned it out.In public to support the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney ?! Would they call him a sedevacantist, or a traditionalist like
the SSPX who reject Vatican Council II ?
If they did accuse me of being a sedevacantist or traditionalist I would say that I accept Vatican Council II.Ad Gentes 7 is in accord with Fr.Leonard Feeney and Lumen Gentium 16 is not an exception.
Similarly I am at home with the Catechism the Catholic Church (846) on Outside the Church there is no salvation.
The Catechism (846) supports Fr. Leonard Feeney.There are no known exceptions mentioned in the Catechism.
So I can hold the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in agreement with the sedevacantists CMRI and MHFM.
(The MHFM assumes that the baptism of desire is explicit and so rejects it I know it is implicit and so I accept it. The CMRI assumes that the baptism of desire is explicit and they accept it as an exception to the dogma.. I assume it is implicit and so I accept it as a possibility but not an exception to the dogma. We all affirm the literal interpretation of the dogma as did Fr.Leonard Feeney).
Implicit baptism of desire and the explicit need for all to enter the Catholic Church with no exception does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction. If the baptism of desire was explicit then it would be a contradiction.
This is not the understanding of Robert Sungenis or the SSPX and other apologists.Since for them the baptism of desire is explicit in 2013 and so an exception to Fr.Leonard Feeney.They use this measure in analysing Vatican Council II.
Since salvation alluded to or directly mentioned in Vatican Council II is visible for them, the Council contradicts Fr. .Leonard Feeney.There is ambiguity in the Council. For Robert Sungenis, Ryan Grant and other apologists on Faithful Answers, under certain conditions, known to them, all do not have to convert.So Vatican Council II contradicts the traditional teaching on other religions and an ecumenism of return.With visible to us salvation extra ecclesiam nulla salus is contradicted for them.
The fault likes not in Vatican Council II but in their interpreting the Council according to Cardinal Richard Cushing,assuming there are known and visible exceptions to the dogma on salvation.
-Lionel Andrades
Faithful Answers wants to stay clear of Fr.Leonard Feeney and the truth
Without the Richard Cushing Error the SSPX, Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and Most Holy Family Monastery would be in agreementhttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/06/without-richard-cushing-error-sspx.html#links
Without the Richard Cushing Error the SSPX, Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and Most Holy Family Monastery would be in agreement-2
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/06/without-richard-cuishing-error-sspx.html#links
Most Holy Family Monastery still assume that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/02/most-holy-family-monastery-still-assume.html#links
Posts
1 comment:
Father Feeney never recanted or renounced his position on 'No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church' when he was reconciled nor did he have to, because he was not in error. Holy Mother Church would not commit perjury. Refer to the following:
" Code of Canon Law, promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 1983, we read in canon 1358 that: "A remission of a censure cannot be granted unless an offender has withdrawn from contumacy in accord with the norm of can. 1347." This norm, laid out in canon 1347 states that: "The guilty party is to be said to have withdrawn from contumacy when he or she has truly repented the offense and furthermore has made suitable reparation for damages and scandal or at least has seriously promised to do so."
In his commentary on the 1917 Code of Canon Law (which said essentially the same thing as the new Code) entitled "A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law," Charles Augustine Bachofen explained that, "...the purpose of censures is the amendment of the delinquent. Consequently, if he recedes from contumacy or persistent disobedience, he is entitled to absolution and it cannot be licitly withheld from him. Repentance alone, however, is not sufficient for purging oneself of contumacy, but satisfaction and reparation of scandal are required, according to can. 2242. Hence the one who absolves from censure must judge whether the acts performed by the penitent are sufficient" (pp. 141,142) and, "That a censure once contracted can be removed only by a lawful absolution follows from the definition given in can. 2236." (p. 141)."
JMJ,
George Brenner
Post a Comment