Saturday, February 20, 2016

Feeneyism according to Wikipedia : with comments


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Feeneyism is the doctrinal position associated with Leonard Feeney (1897–1978), a Jesuit priest and founder of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, who advocated a strictinterpretation of the doctrine extra Ecclesiam nulla salus ("outside the Church there is no salvation").
Feeneyism is the traditional doctrinal position of the Catholic Church over the centuries  and before the Council of Trent on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, defined by three Church Councils.This was the doctrinal understanding of the saints including St. Bellarmine and St. Francis Xavier i.e it was the 'strict interpretation' of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church. They were Feeneyites.
Feeneyism  does not consider being saved with the baptism of desire or blood, or in invincible ignorance, as exceptions, since these cases do not exist in our reality, they are not objective to be exceptions.Invisible cases cannot be exceptions.
All need to be formal members of the Church and being saved in invincible ignorance etc has nothing to do with the 'strict intepretation' of the dogma.
Feeneyism is opposed by Cushingism which postulates known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This includes being saved with the baptism of desire and blood and in invincible ignorance, allegedly without the baptism of water.
Cushingism gets its name from the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Holy Office 1949. They assumed there were known exceptions to the dogma on salvation. Hypothetical cases were assumed to be objective exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma on salvation.
Cushingism also has its roots in the Baltimore Catechism which assumed that the desire for the baptism of water by a catechuman who dies before receiving it,  was not a  hypothetical but a known case. So it was assumed that this hypothetical case being explicit, makes the desire for the baptism of water by an unknown catechuman, a baptism like the baptism of water. So the baptism of desire was placed in the baptism of water section and it was assumed the effects of this 'explicit' baptism was the same as that of the baptism of water, even though no one knows of a baptism of desire case and this baptism cannot be given or repeated like the baptism of water.This was all speculation. This fantasy is the basis of the theology of Cushingism.
Cushingism, is irrational and non traditional. It is heretical since it denies the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It makes it obsolete.It also changes the Nicene Creed's 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin' to ' I believe in three or more known baptisms'.It negates the Athanasius Creed which for centuries affirmed the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and did not mention any exceptions.
Wikipedia, like most Catholics, interprets Vatican Council II with Cushingism. This makes the Council a break with the strict interpretation of the dogma.So we now have a Vatican Council II interpreted with Cushingism or Feeneyism.
I, Lionel, interpret Vatican Council II with Feeeneyism i.e there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. For me LG 16, LG 8, NA 2, UR 3 do not refer to objective cases. They are hypothetical for me.So they cannot contradict the strict intepretation of the dogma according to Fr. Leonard Feeney.
I differ with the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney, in the USA, the St. Benedict Centers. They interpret the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus  with Feeneyism i.e there are no known exceptions, no visible exceptions.However, like the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) bishops and priests, they interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism. LG 16 for instance, refers to explicit cases, so LG 16 is a break with 'the rigorist  interpretation' of the dogma on salvation.
They have never said that Vatican Council II is Feeneyite.

Fr. Leonard Feeney[edit]

Main article: Leonard Feeney
Fr. Feeney was a Roman Catholic priest and a member of the Jesuits. The Jesuit order dismissed Fr. Feeney in 1949 on account of disobedience, and on 4 February 1953, theCongregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (known then as The Holy Office) declared him excommunicated "on account of grave disobedience to Church Authority, being unmoved by repeated warnings".[1] He was reconciled to the Church in 1972.[2] Fr. Feeney co-founded the group known as the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Salvation and baptism[edit]

Catholics traditionally believe that sacramental baptism ("baptism of water") is the only way to be properly baptized.
Period. It is the only way.
 In addition, "the Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament."
This is the theology of Cushingism.
Assuming it did bring about the same fruits, there is no such case known to us. 

There is no such case in history. This is speculation in the Baltimore Catechism.

The Baltimore Catechism does not make the objective-

subjective, visible-invisible distinction.

Fr. Feeney felt that, in the previous two centuries, some tended to broaden the notion of "baptism of desire" to cover the situation of all who try to live good lives, even to those who desired no relationship with the Catholic Church.
He was correct.
 Fr. Feeney argued that those who are truly sincere will be led by God to the Catholic Church.
Yes, there are only Catholics in Heaven. The Catholics in Heaven are there without mortal sin. Since outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation, the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church has always been exclusivist.
 He also accepted no form of baptism as opening the way to salvation other than by water and only within the Catholic Church, but he did say that this was an opinion.
This was the dogmatic teaching.
Also there were no known cases of the baptism of desire and blood with or without the baptism of water.
 He denied the salvational efficacy of the mere wish alone, even the explicit wish to be baptized, and held that God must have provided those martyrs who apparently died for the faith without being baptized with a minister and water to baptize them before their death.
He accepted the baptism of desire and blood. They would be followed with the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, for him.

Father Feeney and his followers maintain that there is a contradiction between the Second Vatican Council's document Lumen gentium and earlier authoritative statements that they interpret as saying that non-Catholics are indiscriminately damned.
According to Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) all need faith and baptism for salvation. This is Feeneyism.Lumen Gentium (8,14,16) do not contradict AG 7. Since LG 8, LG 14 and LG 16 refer to hypothetical cases, they do not contradict the orthodox passages in Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) .They also do not contradict the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

His followers interpret the Catholic Church's declarations that outside of the Church there is no salvation as excluding from salvation people like the American Indians who lived between the times of Christ and Columbus, because they could not have been baptized, except on the hypothesis that some Christian missionaries did manage to reach them and baptize them in the Catholic faith...

The natives in N.America before the arrival of the 

missionaries were oriented to Hell since  they did not 

have 'faith and baptism'(Ad Gentes 7, Lumen Gentium

14,Vatican Council II) which are needed for salvation.

-Lionel Andrades

Preghiere al di fuori degli ospedali, in Italia il 5 marzo (Primo Sabato)

L'aborto uccide i bambini.
        Si può avere un aborto qui.

9 Week Abortion (01)

10 Week Abortion (11)

22 Week Abortion (01)

Tre  di preghiera contro la legislazione n.194 e la legalizzazione dell'aborto volontario di sabato Marzo 5, 2016 ore 9-12 , all'esterno del S. Giovanni Addolorata  , in via Amba Aradam , angolo via dei Laterani , organizzato in tutta Italia dall'organizzazione No.194.

JANUARY 9, 2016

Italian newspapers maintain censorship on thousands of Italian babies killed in local hospitals in a cruel way

Image result for Photos from center for bioethical reform USA

JANUARY 8, 2016

It's over a week and Italian newspapers have still not reported the thousands of Italian babies killed through abortion in local hospitals in 2015

Pope Francis, Sergio Mastarella and Avvenire : immigrant babies are important but Italian babies are not

Abortion Clinic Employees -- "Babies born alive daily."

Nel 2015 sono "scomparsi" 265 mila italiani. C'è emergenza

Nel 2015 sono "scomparsi" 265 mila italiani. C'è emergenza non l'omosessualismo

A factual error in Vatican Council II

Related image
No one in the past could have seen someone in Heaven without the baptism of water.At least the Church does not recognise anyone with this mystical gift.
None of us in 2016 knew of a baptism of desire(BOD) or invincible ignorance (I.I)  case.Someone in Heaven without the baptism of water.
So no theologian could say St.Emerentiana or St. Victor went to Heaven with the BOD in the Catholic Church and are there without 'the laver of regeneration', the baptism of water.
None of us can see anyone saved with the baptism of desire.Neither did Church Fathers claim  these cases  were physically visible.So there was no way cardinals and bishops in 1949, saw someone in Heaven who did not need to be a formal member of the Catholic Church.
The Archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Richard Cushing did not know too of a BOD case. He did not know of an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
Similarly no one at the 1949 Holy Office in Rome could say they knew of someone saved without the baptism of water.Nether could Pope Pius XII make this claim.

The baptism of desire which Pope Pius XII  referred to was  hypothetical.The catechuman who desired this baptism of water and died before receiving it was a hypothetical case.
So when it is said that the BOD has the same result as the baptism of water ( Baltimore Catechism) it is a reference to a hypothetical case.So at Baltimore the bishops speculated.
Similarly when the Council of Trent refers to 'the desiretherof'  it is hypothetical speculation. They were also probably responding to a campaign by Freemasons and others who wanted to eliminate the dogma EENS and so were postulating exceptions.
If there was some one saved with 'the desiretherof', this person  would be Heaven and would be unknown to humans on earth.
So when the magisterium criticised Fr.Leonard Feeney  for not accepting exceptions  to the dogma EENS, where are these exceptions? What are their names and surnames? 
Can there really be exceptions?
 No. Since hypothetical cases cannot be objective. Objectively speaking there cannot be known exceptions.

Related image
'Zero cases of something are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ' says the apologist John Martignoni.
Rev. Fr.P. Stefano Visintin OSB, Dean of the Faculty of Theology at the Pontifical University St.Anselm, Rome says all non Catholics need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation and there are no known exceptions.This is the teaching of the Catholic Church.
The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are possibilities, he said, but are not known exceptions to the traditional teaching on salvation.1
So they made an objective mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.Since they considered BOD and being saved in I.I as being exceptions.
It is a fact of life that we cannot see people in Heaven saved with the baptism of desire with or without the baptism of water.
It is a fact of life that we cannot see or know any exception to EENS. This is common sense.Many priests in Rome agree with me.2 They say the baptism of desire was not an exception to the Feeneyite intepretation of EENS.
Yet the popular new theology in the USA in 1949  was based on this factual error ( being able to see people in Heaven without the baptism of water).It was based on an objective error ( these deceased-saved were physically visible). So there was an irrational inference ( these dead-saved now physically seen, are exceptions to EENS and examples of salvation outside the Church).So the conclusion was Vatican Council II was a break with Tradition,with the old exclusivist ecclesiology (all outside the Church are going to Hell with no exceptions).This is the dead man walking and visible theory. It is theology based on fantasy.
This irrational thinking was magisterial.No pope corrected it from Pius XII to Paul VI.The error was placed in Vatican Council II.
The error is placed directly in Lumen Gentium 14 and indirectly in LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2, AG 11 ( seeds of the Word etc).
From 1949 to 1965 Catholics were officially informed that being saved in invincible ignorance, referred to not hypothetical cases but explicit cases, objectively seen and known.LG 16 suggests only those persons need to enter the Church ,'who know' about it and are not in ignorance.Those who were in ignorance about Jesus and the Church were exceptions to EENS, for Rome.They had not lifted the excommunication of Fr.Leonard Feeney in 1965.This consolidated the irrational new doctrine.
This was a break with the three Church Councils which defined EENS and did not mention BOD and I.I. Since obviously hypothetical cases cannot be exceptions to EENS.
For Cardinal Cushing and the Jesuits at Vatican Council II however hypothetical cases were exceptions to EENS.So they inserted passages which were irrelevant to EENS e.g UR 3, LG 16, LG 8,NA 2, AG 11 etc.The error is now innocently accepted by good people all over the world.
Today morning after the 9 a.m Mass in Italian at the church  Santa Maria Ianua Coeli in Montespaccato, via  Cornelia, Rome I spoke briefly with Fr.Jerome.He is the young priest in a Marian religious community who had offered the Mass.He said the Church no longer affirms the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus since a person could be saved in invincible ignorance etc.
He accepted the irrational theology and new doctrine and he was not aware of the factual error in Vatcian Council II.
-Lionel Andrades


July 18, 2014
Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson contradicts USCCB : the baptism of desire is not visible to us and so is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson says Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors

Implicit intention, invincible ignorance and a good conscience (LG 16) in Vatican Council II do not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus –John Martignoni

If one says there are exceptions to something then it is implied that something must exist to be an exception. This is common knowledge.

There is an objective mistake in Vatican Council

There is an objective mistake in Vatican Council

May be a cardinal or bishop would not give Vatican Council II an imprimatur.

1. Since there is a factual error in Lumen Gentium 14.
2.Since the factual error was made in the 1949 Letter to the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston with an irrational inference, the Council is 'full of' hypothetical passages which the Vatican Curia interprets as being explicit, objectively seen.
Here is the error in the Letter of the Holy Office.
Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Related image 
The error was repeated in Vatican Council II.
14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.-Lumen Gentium 14 
Let me explain.
Since being saved in invincible ignorance was considered explicit, it was inferred that these, allegedly objective cases, were exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). So it was concluded every one needed to formally enter the Church ( with faith and baptism) except for those who are saved in invincible ignorance etc.
So Lumen Gentium 14 clarified that those who know about the Church, 'whosoever, therefore, knowing ', had an obligation to enter the Church and to remain in it to avoid Hell.
Those who were ignorant, it was inferred (like the natives in North America before the missionaries went there) did not have an obligation to enter the Church. They would be saved in invincible ignorance.
So this is a new theology based on an objective error, that of being able to see or know people in Heaven saved without the baptism of water and in invincible ignorance etc.
On this point a cardinal could object to giving the imprimatur to Vatican Council II...
There is a clear mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office and Vatican Council II which originated from the Baltimore Catechism.In all this we can see America emerging as a superpower and the American Church influencing the Catholic Church, in a negative way. The aim seemed to be,eliminate the dogma EENS...1
-Lionel Andrades

There is an objective mistake in Vatican Council II.It is responsible for 'the Vatican moment' which Rorate Caeili mentions