Friday, June 10, 2016

The issue is how does Boniface interpret Vatican Council II-with Cushingism or Feeneyism

Boniface(Blog Unam Sanctam Catholicam) may say that he follows the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and so rejects Feeneyism, true, but then the issue is how does he interpret Vatican Council II.I too accept the Letter but not in the way he does.
I accept the first part of the Letter which is traditional and so indicates that there are no exceptions  to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).This is Feeneyism for me.
I cannot accept the second part of the Letter,which contradicts the first part and indicates the baptism of desire etc is explicit and objectively known in the present times, for it to be an exception to the traditional interpretation of EENS.This is nonsense.Since there are no known cases of the baptism of desire.This is Cushingism for me.
For me Feeneyism means there are no known exceptions to EENS while Cushingism says there are known exceptions.The baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance, all without the baptism of water, is an exception.
Feeneyism says hypothetical cases cannot be practical exceptions to EENS.Cushingism says they can and they are.
So the real issue is how does Boniface interpret Vatican Council II, is it with Feeneyism or Cushingism? One of these two approaches for me is irrational, non traditional and heretical.There are other implications.Since he supports Cushinghism it means not every one needs to enter the Catholic Church in the present times.So the teaching on the Social Reign of Christ the King, over all political legislation, is obsolete. There are exceptions.
It also means that a non Catholic can be saved in his or her religion, so Fr. Karl Rahner S.J's was correct with his Anonymous Christian theory,for Boniface, his bishop and the present magisterium.

It means Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was correct with his new theology in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which says all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church.He implies that there can be an 'Anonymous Christian' and all need not formally enter the Church for salvation.
This is the liberal new theology, the new ecclesiology which Boniface and his bishop supports, while externally offering the Latin or Novus Ordo Mass.
I attend Mass and affirm Vatican Council with Feeneyism.So there is no Anonymous Christian for me, and all need to formally enter the Church with 'faith and baptism'(AG 7, LG 14).The Church is the new people of God (NA 4), Catholics are the new Chosen People, they are the Elect.
Vatican Council II is Feeneyite for me.I affirm Vatican Council II and also implicit-for-us baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance. I reject Vatican Council II (Cushingite) which Boniface accepts.I also reject explicit-for-us baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance( with or without the baptism of water).It is invisible for me and not part of the human reality.
So for me the baptism of desire does not contradict EENS.Implicit for us baptism of desire does not contradict all externally needing to be a formal member of the Church. It is not contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction.
For me LG 14( implicit for us) is not an exception to EENS.For Boniface, LG 14 ( explicit for us) is an explicit exception to EENS.So Vatican Council II contradicts EENS for Boniface.It does not do so for me since LG 14 etc refers to a hypothetical case.
All this will be difficult for the traditionalists who sincerely want to understand me.Since I am approaching this issue with a different premise and conclusion.I avoid  their premise ( visible hypothetical cases)  and conclusion ( practical exceptions to EENS and the Syllabus of Errors), to return to the old ecclesiology, with the rational premise(no physically visible hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire etc) and conclusion (there are no known exceptions to EENS and the traditional ecclesiology based on EENS).
The innovation was enforced in the Church, with the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.It went un-noticed even for Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
-Lionel Andrades

Unam Sanctam Catholicam
Bishop Fellay made a mistake and Boniface on the blog Unam Sanctam Catholicam has nothing to say in his defense:agrees Cardinal Muller and Archbishop Augustine di Noia also made an objective error

Related image
Muller, Di Noia and Fellay made an objective error in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and traditionalists are in a fix. They cannot correct me and neither do they want to say that they were wrong all these years and have been interpreting Vatican Council II with an irrational reasoning.


No comments: