(24:28) That's what we are dealing with here.To claim that a Council of 23,000 bishops united with the Vicar of Christ would teach heresy is a serious challenge to the indefectability of the Church.Christ said I will be with you, until the end of the age.-Dr.Robert Fastiggi
This is the issue.
The 23,000 bishops and the Vicar of Christ assumed hypothetical cases were explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS-Feeneyite).
They accepted this reasoning which was there in the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston.
They approved the theology of Cushingism. So we find in Vatican Council II Cushingism passages along with Feeneyite passages.
The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance according to the theology of Feeneyism, which I have explained in a previous post,1 refer to invisible for- us cases. So they are not exceptions to the dogma EENS ( Feeneyite) or the Feeneyite passages in Vatican Council II, those passages which affirm the traditional ecclesiology.
When the Council Fathers accepted the Cushingite passages in Vatican Council II it was a mistake.Those passages should not have been there.
They were wrongly placed in Vatican Council II since the Council Fathers, assumed implicit cases were explicit, hypothetical cases were objectively known.
To reject the old ecclesiology and the dogma EENS( Feeneyite) is heresy.To assume that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are baptisms, visible and repeatable like the baptism of water is irrationality. It also changes the Nicene Creed to 'I believe in three or more baptisms for the forgiveness of sin'.This too is heresy.It makes the first and last passage of the Athanasius Creed obsolete.
So the Cushingite passages in Vatican Council II and the Cushingite interpretations of Vatican Council II are heretical and this was supported by the bishops and Pope Paul VI and the popes which followed.
The Holy Spirit cannot teach error. Cushingism cannot be the teaching of the Holy Spirit.
So Bishop Sanborn is correct in rejecting this aspect of Vatican Council II, the Cushingite aspect.
However he is wrong to not interpret Vatican Council II with the theology of Feeneyism.Then the Cushingite passages are simply assumed to refer to hypothetical cases and so are not exceptions to the old ecclesiology or the dogma EENS( Feeneyite).
The same error is made by Dr. Robert Fastiggi. He does not interpret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism. Instead he quotes the Feeneyite passages and he tries to interpret the Cushingite passages, in line with Tradition(Feeneyism).
(25:05) Vatican Council II says that the Catholic Church is the one,holy, Catholic and apostolic Church.-Dr.Robert Fastiggi.
Yes it does say this. This is a Feeneyite passages.
However it mentions the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance(AG 7,LG 14) and this is assumed to exclude the baptism of water, as it was understood in the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.So for salvation every one does not need to be a formal member of the one, true, holy and Catholic Church.
The Letter suggests that there are explicit exceptions to the dogma EENS(Feeneyite).At the time of Vatican Council II, the Archbishop of Boston and the Holy Office had still not lifted the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney.
(25:09) First I would like to begin with the definition of the Church of St. Robert Bellarmine.He says the one and true Church is the assembly of human beings joined together by the profession of the same Christian faith and the communion of the same Sacraments under the government of legitimate pastors especially the one victor of Christ on earth the Roman pontiff.I would hope that Bishop Sanborn would agree with this definition. - Dr.Robert Fastiggi.
We are not joined together by the same profession of faith.We have the Catholic Faith interpreted with the theology of Feeneyism or Cushingism.We have pastors and the Vicar of Christ interpreting Vatican Council II (LG 16, LG 8 etc) with irrational Cushingism.So the inference is a break with Tradition.It is a rupture with the dogma EENS( Feeneyite) and in harmony with the dogma EENS( Cushingite). It is a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors. There is a conflict with pre and post Vatican Council II theology and practise.
Bishop Sanborn rejects this heresy.He rejects Vatican with this Cushingite interpretation.Since the popes accept this heresy he chooses sedevacantism.
(25:40) How does Vatican Council II define the Catholic Church ? In the Decree of the Eastern Catholic Churches we read, the Holy Catholic Church which is the Mystical Body of Christ is made up of the faithful who are organically united in the Holy Spirit by the same faith,the same Sacraments and the same government.It almost comes point by point from St. Robert Bellarmine.- Dr.Robert Fastiggi.
It is not the same faith. Since I interpret Vatican Council II and other Church documents with Feeneyism. The popes and bishops do so with Cushingism.
It is not the same govenment as at the time of St.Robert Bellarmine. The popes and cardinals at the time of St. Robert Bellarmine were Feeneyites. For them there were no exceptions to the dogma EENS which was also Feeneyite.The popes from Pius XII are clearly and magisterially Cushingite.For these popes since the 1940's there were exceptions to the dogma EENS( Feeneyite.So there is now an EENS which is Cushingite. EENS is interpreted as having exceptions.There are explicit exceptions to EENS and they include explicit for us baptism of desire etc.
So we do not have the same faith. The doctrine and practise of the contemporary government of the Church is Cushingite.Pastorally the Church is Cushingite and so different from the time of St. Robert Bellarmine.
Bp. Donald Sanborn and Dr. Robert Fastiggi are mixing up Cushingism and Feeneyism as a theology