Tuesday, June 28, 2016

Bp. Donald Sanborn and Dr. Robert Fastiggi are mixing up Cushingism and Feeneyism as a theology

I refer to the new theology as Cushingite theology since it is based on known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus( Feeneyite).It assumes the baptism of desire refers to explicitly visible cases in the present times(2016) saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.It infers that not every one needs to enter the Catholic Church for salvation, as was taught by the Council of Florence 1441.It accepts the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which contradicts the first part which is traditional.The first part of the Letter(1949) supports EENS(Feeneyite).
I think it is more precise to call the new theology Cushingite theology, since it refers to an important supporter,Cardinal Richard Cushing, who enforced it in the Archdiocese of Boston and had it placed in the text of Vatican Council II.However one can choose to call it Theology B or another name.With two columns1I have explained the old theology as A and the new theology as B in many blog posts.

The old traditional theology on EENS (Feeneyite) , that of the 16th century missionaries, to whom Pope Benedict recently referred to in the interview with Avvenire,I call the Feeneyite theology.It may be called the A theology or any other name.I am referring to the theology at the time of the Council of Florence 1441,to Cantate Domino.It did not consider the baptism of desire as being explicit.There are no known exceptions to EENS( Feeneyite).The interpretation of EENS( Feeneyite) is 'strict' or 'rigorist'.
So I use the terms Cushingism or Feeneyism when discussing ecclesiology or salvation theology( soteriology).In inter-religious dialogue and ecumenism I am a Feeneyite and not a Cushingite.
Feeneyism for me, does not have an innovation, a new premise ( hypothetical cases are explicit) and a new conclusion( they are explicit exceptions to EENS,Feeneyite).
So I can choose to interpret Vatican Council II with Feeneyite LG 16, LG 8,UR 3, NA 2 etc.Since all of them refer to invisible and not visible cases,hypothetical and not objectively known cases.For people in general LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc are Cushingite.
So much of Vatican Council II is based on Cushingism.It comes from the Cushingite part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.It was the reasoning of the second part of the Letter(1949).This is an error in Vatican Council II.It is a philosophical error,which says that the baptism of desire cases are exceptions to EENS since they are visible. If they were not physically visible they would not be exceptions.This is convoluted reasoning.Yet it comes across when someone says there are exceptions to EENs or all do not need to enter the Church.
This is the philosophical error which creates a new theology,which is an innovation and heresy.
Once this is understood it can be seen in the Ecclesiology Debate between Bp. Donald Sanborn and Dr. Robert Fastiggi (video below) that they are both mixing up Cushingism and Feeneyism as a theology.
Video:Ecclesiology Debate: Bp. Donald Sanborn vs. Dr. Robert Fastiggi (2004) 
-Lionel Andrades


SSPX has only to interpret Vatican Council II with the left hand side column and there is no break with their traditional beliefs on other religions, ecumenism and religious liberty 


Franciscans of the Immaculate being forced to choose the right hand side column in the interpretation of Vatican Council II : conscience issue, injustice being done


No comments: