Tuesday, April 12, 2016

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

    • Photo Courtesy of CNS
      • OnePeterFive

    • Avatar

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


    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

    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 

     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 

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

    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.


    No comments: