Atila S. Guimarães and Robert de Mattei wrote books on Vatican Council II not knowing that with Feeneyism Vatican Council II affirms an Ecumenism of Return, Social Reign of Christ the King and no known salvation outside the Church.
So they both rejected Vatican Council II as being a break with Tradition after using this irrational premise and conclusion.
For both of them Lumen Gentium 16( saved in invincible ignorance) referred to someone known, who was saved without the baptism of water in the present times.So for them this was an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
For both of them Lumen Gentium 8 refers not to an invisible but known case of people in ther present times(2016) saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. It would have to be in the present times ,otherwise why would Lumen Gentium 8 be an exception to the dogma on salvation ? So this is an exception to the old ecclesiology and an ecumenism of return.Since there was known salvation outside the Church and ecumenism of return has exceptions.With this theology they are liberals.
They did not know that with Feeneyism Vatican Council II does not have a hermeneutic of rupture .
They did not know that with Feeneyism Vatican Council II would not contradict the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).So there could only be an ecumenism of return.All Lutherans in 2016 need to be incorporated into the Catholic Church to avoid Hell.
They did not know that with Feeneyism Vatican Council II would not contradict the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).So there could only be an ecumenism of return.All Lutherans in 2016 need to be incorporated into the Catholic Church to avoid Hell.
They did not know that with Feeneyism Vatican Council II affirms the Social Reign of Christ the King.
They did not know that with Feeneyism Vatican Council II says all Jews and Muslims need 'faith and baptism' for salvation.Since there are no exceptions in Vatican Council II to the dogma EENS as it was known to Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston.
For both of them Unitatitis Redintigratio 3 refers to an objectively visible case, may be of a Protestant, Anglican or Lutheran, who is/was saved outside the visible limits of the Church.So outside the Church there is objecively known salvation for them.They both use the false premise to reach a non traditional and heretical conclusion.So fault is not there with Vatican Council II but there interpretation of it.They replaced traditional Feeneyism with the new theology.
As I mentioned in a previous blog post for me Vatican Council II is not a break with the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, St.Francis Xavier, the three Church Councils which defined it and the many popes were affirmed it.I do not reject the baptism of desire etc. I just assume that they are invisiblle and hypothetical cases. If they happened they would only be known to God.
So I am affirming the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS along with implicit and invisible for baptism of desire.Similarly being saved in invincible ignorance with or without the baptism of water, for me, is an imaginary and hypothetical case. So it is irrelevant to Feeneyite EENS. Pope Pius XII in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made an objecitive mistake. An injustice was done to Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.
For me Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Holy Office in 1949 were in heresy and Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center were teaching orthodoxy, in as much as the present day traditionalists and sedevacantists, like the liberals, are affirming heresy, though unknowingly.-Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment