Tuesday, November 8, 2016

Today the magisterium wants the SSPX to affirm Vatican Council II with hypothetical cases being objective in the present times and they are not doing so.Neither would I.

As far as Feeney goes, you're not actually defending his ideas on extra ecclesiam nulla salus, are you?
Lionel:
Fr.Leonard Feeney was affirming extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) like the 16th centuries missionaries. He was saying the same thing as the three Church Councils which defined the dogma. He was saying the same thing as the popes and saints who affirmed EENS without known-to-us baptism of desire etc.

__________________________

 As you know, he was condemned by the Holy Office in 1949 and finally excommunicated by Pope Pius XII in 1953 for persisting in his errors of private interpretation of Catholic dogma surrounding the Sacrament of Baptism and the salvation of souls.
Lionel:
Yes he was saying that there is no known case of the baptism of desire etc. He was saying that there are no exceptions outside the Church while the Jesuits, the Rector of Boston College and the Archbishop of Boston was saying there are.
Since then the magisterium has also been saying there are known exceptions to the dogma EENS.
THIS IS THE NEW THEOLOGY.
So where are the exceptions to EENS in 2016? I cannot meet anyone saved outside the Church? I cannot see any person in Heaven or earth saved without the baptism of water? So how could the traditional theology be flawed, if there are no objective exceptions? How could the magisterium and the Archbishop in 1949 assume imaginary cases were exeptions to traditional EENS ? This was irrational. It was also heretical.
______________________________

 Joseph Fenton, among others, wrote papers demolishing Feeney's position and clearly stating why it is wrong.
Lionel:
Joseph Fenton like the good apologist John Hardon accepted the error of the magisterium in 1949.
It is with this irratiional reasoning that Vatican Council II is being interpreted as a break with Tradition. If we avoid this reasoning, then the text of Vatican Council II says something else. It is traditional.
________________________________

 Feeney was pertinaciously disobedient to the Magisterium of the Church, something that is today just commonplace among the modernists in power.
Lionel:
Yes. The magisterium wanted him to say that he could see baptism of desire cases in Boston and he was saying he would not say so.
Today the magisterium wants the SSPX to affirm Vatican Council II with hypothetical cases being objective in the present times and they are not doing so.Neither would I.
-Lionel Andrades

No comments: