Cardinal Ratzinger also did not tell Archbishop Lefebvre that Vatican Council II could be interpreted with Feeneyism. The Archbishop and the SSPX bishops were rejecting Cushingite Vatican Council II

• 
  
  
  
  

  
• 

•  
• 

  
  
  
  
  

  Jay  LionelAndrades 

  
  

  1949? Pope Pius IX talked about
• salvation for the invincibly ignorant in 
• the mid 19th century
• 
  

Lionel:

Yes and it was understood that 1) that this was a
 theoretical, hypothetical case (common knowledge) 
and 2) it would be followed with the baptism of 
water in the Church in a manenr known only to
 God.

The Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of
 Boston 1949 assumed 1) that the hypothetical case
 was explicit and that 2) this explicit case was an 
objective exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam
 nulla salus (EENS).

This is how the liberal theologians then started
 interpreting Pius IX and others who mentioned
 invincible ignorance and the desire for the 
baptism of water by a catechumen who dies
 before receiving it.

Since the theologians considered these 
hypothetical cases 

 as being explicit they mentioned them in Vatican 

Council 

 II (AG 7, LG 14) with reference to

 orthodox passages which

 support EENS( all need

 faith and baptism).They really should

 not be there. Since they are invisible
 cases and so irrelevant 

to EENS.

Then they also inserted so many hypothetical 
cases in Vatican 

 Council as if they were exceptions to the 

traditional teaching 

on salvation (LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2, AG 11( seeds of the 
Word) etc.

Cardinal Ratzinger accepted that there were explicit 
exceptions to the dogma EENS and so there is a reference
 to being saved with the baptism of desire and in 
invincible ignorance in the Catechism of the Catholic 
Church(1992).They should not have been mentioned 
in the Catechism.He needed to clarify that these cases 
were hypothetical and so were not exceptions to the
 Feeneyite interpretation of EENS. He did not do this.

To assume hypothetical cases are explicit exceptions
 to EENS is Cushingism for me. Cardinal Ratzinger
 interpreted EENS as a Cushingite.He also 
interpreted Vatican Council II as a Cushingite.

For me there are no explicit exceptions to EENS.
This is Feeneyism. I interpret EENS as a Feeneynite.
 I also interpret Vatican Council II as a Feeneyite.

For Cardinal Ratzinger LG 16 refers to a known
 exception to the dogma EENS since it is visible
 and objecively seen for him  ( Cushingism). For 

me 

 LG 16 refers to an invisible case. So it is not 

an 

exception to EENS.

So for me Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) does not
 contradict EENS ( Feeneyite).

For Pope Benedict Vatican Council II ( Cushingite)
 contradicts EENs ( Feeneyite).

So Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus was 
written with the theology of Cushingism. 
This was a flaw.

He also did not tell Archbishop Lefebvre that 
Vatican Council II could be interpreted with 
Feeneyism. The Archbishop and the SSPX 
bishops were rejecting Cushingite Vatican
 Council II.

-Lionel

http://www.onepeterfive.com/pope-benedict-breaks-his-silence-on-deep-crisis/#comment-2620012764