Deacon Edward Schaefer will not be able to get a professor of theology who will interpret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism instead of Cushingism.So the students will have to be taught the usual confusion at the new traditional college. It is called the Collegium Sanctorum Angelorum.
They will have to reject Vatican Council II ( with Cushingism) since it will be a break with Tradition.This will create tension with the diocesan bishop.
Or, they will have to accept Vatican Council II ( with Cushingism).This will be a break with Tradition on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. This is a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors and the teachings of popes and saints.The irrational reasoning results in a rejection of the Nicene Creed's 'I believe in one baptism for the forgivesness of sin'. The new doctrine is 'I believe in three or more known baptisms for the forgiveness of sin and they may exclude or include the baptism of water'.
So what do we do?
There is a choice.
The choice is not there with the SSPX. Since they reject Vatican Council II or they interpret it it with Cushingism and so the Council becomes a break with Tradition.
They could choose to have a professor of theology at the college, interpret Vatican Council II in agreement with the exclusivist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).He will affirm the traditional ecclesiology and also show the diocesan bishop that 1) he accepts Vatican Council II and 2) is not rejecting any of the traditional teachings.
To do this he simply has to interpret Church-texts without using an irrational premise and inference.It's simple.I call it the Feeneyite interpretation i.e there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS, since there cannot be any known exception.
Cushingism is complicated and irrational.It uses a premise ( "I can physically see people in Heaven this year saved without the baptism of water") and an inference ( "these persons, dead and now in Heaven and visible to me, are explicit exceptions to all needing the baptism of water in the Catholic Church for salvation.So there is salvation outside the Church").
With the Feeneyite interpretation, the college tells the bishop in Florida that they affirm Vatican Council II in agreement with the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS.Neither is Vatican Council II or the dogma EENS rejected.
They also accept being saved with the baptism of desire, blood and in invincible ignorance.They are not rejected, since they are not explicit.So they are irrelevant to the dogma EENS.They are interpreted without the irrational premise and inference.
So the new traditional college affirms Vatican Council II, the dogma EENS, the baptism of desire, blood and being saved in invincible ignorance. They accept the Nicene Creed with ' I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin.' ( I believe in one known baptism.Being saved without the baptism of water and with the baptism of desire cannot be known).
I think this should be good enough for the bishop.
If the bishop insists that the baptism of desire should be accepted as happening without the baptism of water, and is an example of salvation outside the Church, tell him that the college faculty like him and his Curia, do not know of any such case and neither could any one in the past known of such an extra ordinary happening. Even the saints and popes do not claim that they could have known any person saved with the baptism of desire saved without the baptism of water. This though, is how it is wrongly inferred by theologians after the Baltimore Catechism was issued.
So in the present times (2016) as in the past, there are no known exceptions to EENS.(No one saw St. Emerentiana or St.Victor in heaven without the baptism of water).There are no known exceptions to the rule i.e all need the baptism of water in the Catholic Church for salvation.If the bishop wants to speculate, fine- but there cannot be a defacto known case in Church history.None of us can say that Dismas the Good Thief who died on the cross was not earlier baptised with water as a disciple of Jesus.
So in the present times (2016) as in the past, there are no known exceptions to EENS.(No one saw St. Emerentiana or St.Victor in heaven without the baptism of water).There are no known exceptions to the rule i.e all need the baptism of water in the Catholic Church for salvation.If the bishop wants to speculate, fine- but there cannot be a defacto known case in Church history.None of us can say that Dismas the Good Thief who died on the cross was not earlier baptised with water as a disciple of Jesus.
So the bottom line is that the bishop, like the one in the Fischer More College diocese, cannot say that the new traditional college is not accepting Vatican Council II.
How the bishop wants to interpret Vatican Council II ( with Cushingism or Feeneyism) is up to him. Within the college the students will be taught to interpret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism. Since it is rational and traditional.The conclusion is non-heretical. It is in sync with the Nicene Creed, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors.
There is a wonderful choice before Deacon Edward Schaefer.He is assisted with the beauty and symmetry of the Faith. It is so precise and orderly,and if nothing new is added, all ends tie-up, everything is in synchrony.
-Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment